NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. DHARMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CUMULATIVELY taken, these three FAO (Nos. 1609, 1671 and 1672 of 1993), a litigative endeavour of the Insurance Company aimed at obtaining exoneration from liability to pay the varying amounts of compensation to the claimants-respondents, represent an unenviable spectacle of delay which has apparently crept into the system of dispensation of justice. No sermons these. Merely an indication of exasperating helplessness - which is what it is. No blames meant in particular. The fond hope is that all concerned (self - included with conceded answerability) in the mechanism of Administration of Justice ought to wake up to discern the societal accountability as well, in preference to the professional interests which must inevitably pave way for the larger public interest which, obviously, lies in noticeably expeditious disposal.

(2.) RAM Avtar, Parkash and Ramesh were travelling by Maruti van bearing registration No. DL-2-C-1348, driven by respondent Jit Singh. It came into contact with a stationary truck at the dead of the night at 1.00/1.30 a.m. on 29.11.1991 near Jai Singhpur Khera Barrier. Parkash died instantaneously at the spot itself; while Ramesh and Ram Avtar sustained grievous injuries/multiple fractures. Ram Avtar ultimately died on 31.12.1991 on account of injuries sustained in the course of the impugned accident. Respondents Mst. Dharmi Devi, Laxmi and Rinku are legal representatives of Ram Avtar. (Dharmi Devi is widow and the other two named are minor female children born to her from the loins of her deceased-husband). Smt. Maveli and Parbhu Ram are parents of deceased Ram Avtar and Ramesh Kumar is the injured. They had instituted MACT cases No. 40 of 1994, 49 of 1992 and 50 of 1992 respectively. All these were consolidated on 15.12.1992. The corresponding FAOs filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award dated 12.3.1992 are (Nos. 1609, 1671 and 1672 of 1993). It may be indicated, on point of fact, that Ghisa Ram and Chameli, parents of deceased Ram Avtar, had also filed MACT No. 166 of 1992 which was dismissed by the Tribunal as time barred. (No appeal had been preferred against it). Compensation of Rs. 1,34,000/- was awarded in favour of Mst. Dharmi Devi etc., compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Maweli and Parbhu and compensation of Rs. 32,000/- was awarded in favour of Ramesh injured. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the impugned accident had been caused by respondent No. 1 by having driven the very vehicle, by which the deceased and also the injured were travelling, rashly and negligently. The claimants were also held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the petition till realisation thereof. As between Dharmi Devi and two other claimants and also as between Maveli and Parbhu Ram, the amount was divisible in equal shares inter se. Counsel fee in each case was assessed as Rs. 500/-. (Though the claim petition filed by Ghisa and Chameli was dismissed as time barred, it was ordered by the Tribunal in the concluding para of the award that, out of the compensation payable to Dharmi Devi and her two daughters, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- shall be disbursed to Mst. Chameli, mother of deceased Ram Avtar under the 'no fault liability' clause).

(3.) THE only point vehemently canvassed on behalf of the Insurance Company is that, for want of proof about the holding of a genuine driving licence by respondent No. 1, no liability for the compensation payable could have been fastened upon the Insurer. In support of the advocated plea, learned counsel argued that a Local Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal itself held an enquiry and recorded a finding that the driving licence produced by respondent No. 1 was not genuine.