NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine shall dispose of three connected appeal Nos. 1552 to 1554 of 2008, having arisen out of the judgment dated 7.2.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rohtak (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby eight claim petitions were disposed of out of which awards were passed in claim petition No. 145 of 14.6.2006, (Maya Devi and others v. Jaswant Singh and others); No. 167 of 14.6.2006, (Madhu and others v. Jaswant Singh and others); and No. 170 of 15.6.2006, (Raj Kumari and others v. Jaswant Singh and others).

(2.) THE Common facts arising out of the aforesaid claim petitions are that on 6.5.2006, Ram Phal, Narender, Savitri, Sanjay, Suresh Chander, Raj Kumar, Guru Parshad all since deceased and Ashok injured were travelling in jeep bearing registration No. HR-56T-2501 for going to Rohtak via village Lakhan Majra. When they reached near village Bhagwatipur then Jaswant Singh respondent No. 1 while driving a tanker bearing registration No. PB-12H-5025 (for short the offending vehicle rashly and negligently came from the side of Rohtak and struck into the jeep. Resultantly all the occupants of the jeep suffered multiple injuries. Eventually Ram Phal, Narender, Savitri, Sanjay, Suresh Chander, Raj Kumar, and Guru Parshad died at the spot whereas Ashok suffered injuries. As an aftermath of the accident, the different claim petitions were filed wherein different awards were passed.

(3.) THE prime argument and advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- insurance Company is that the approach of the Tribunal is wrong and erroneous in awarding exorbitant compensation. The deceased in all the three claim petitions were between the age of 50 to 55 years. Some of the claimants were not dependent upon the deceased persons. The deceased were to retire from service within 7-8 years and there were no avenues of their promotion and the Tribunal without applying any proper and suitable parameters applied the multiplier of 17 which was quite against the canons of the judicial administration. It was further contended that though the Insurance Company had moved the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act on 16.10.2007, but the Tribunal withheld the decision over it till the decision of the case. Ultimately, the said application was dismissed only on the day when the orders were passed in the main petition. It was also urged that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the claim petitions were not being defended properly by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They after fling the written statement did not produce any witness to corroborate the version set up in the written statement. Since no body appeared on behalf of the respondents to rebut the contention of the claimants, therefore, findings on issue No. 1 were returned against the respondents as such, inference could be drawn that the respondent No. 1 did not contest the application properly and further inference is that they were hand in glove with the claimants. It was further urged that had the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act been allowed, then the appellants could have summoned the witnesses in order to establish the negligence of the jeep driver. Thus, the order dated 7.2.2008 declining the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, at the fag end of the case deprived the company of its valuable rights.