NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, upon, Claim Petition No. 34/2 of 2017, as stood, cast therebefore, under, the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (i) AND, whereunder, compensation amount, comprised in, a sum of Rs.18,84,400/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was, hence ordered to commence, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, rather stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, claimants, (ii) and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant/insurer, has, not contested, the, validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, hence appertaining to the demise of Paras Ram, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.8 herein, nor he has contested the validity of fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, vis-a-vis, the afore compensation amount. However, the learned counsel appearing, for the insurer, has with much vigour contended before this Court, (a) that the computation of compensation, in the impugned award, by the learned tribunal concerned, suffers from a gross fallacy, of, mis-appraisal of evidence on record. However, the afore contention reared before this Court by the learned counsel for the insurer, is, a mis-espousal, (b) as a perusal of the impugned award, makes visible echoings, that the per mensem salary drawn, by the deceased, from his being engaged, as a cleaner in Bulker No. HP-24A-7161 owned by M/s Naresh Kumar and Company Pvt. Ltd., rather being comprised in a sum of Rs.7,500/-, besides therewith, hence, diet money, borne in a sum of Rs.50/- per diem being also disbursed to the deceased. Since, the salary certificate stood exhibited as Ex.PW4/A, and, no suggestions, were put to PW-4, during, the course of his being subjected to cross-examination qua Ex.PW4/A being fictitiously drawn, (c) given it being issued, despite, the deceased not being maintained on the rolls, of, the employees of the company concerned, (d) rather when he has in his cross-examination, hence, volunteered, to, make a communication, that, the online data, in respect thereof standing displayed, on the relevant website, of the company concerned, echoing whereof remains unrepulsed, rather begets a formidable conclusion, that, the per mensem salary of the deceased, as determined by the learned tribunal, on anvil of Ex.PW4/A not suffering from any aura, of, any inveracity. Further, thereonwards addition or accretions towards future prospects, as stood levied upon the afore reared per mensem salary of the deceased, from, his employment, as a cleaner, in the truck owned by the company concerned, is in tandem, with the verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700, and, hence obviously does not merit any interference. Moreover, ? 1/4 th deduction, as, made, vis-a-vis, the per mensem income of the deceased, rather by the learned tribunal, given, the number of the dependents upon the latters' income, exceeding three, is also in consonance with a plethora, of judgments rendered by courts of law. Moreover, the application of the requisite multiplier, upon, the afore figure, of, annual dependency, also, is within the domain of the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled, as Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121. In sequel, it is to be concluded, that, the compensation amount, as adjudged in the impugned award, does not merit, any interference.

(3.) However, the learned counsel, appearing for the aggrieved insurer, has contended with much vigour, before this Court, (a) that with Ex. R-4, limiting the liability, of the insurer, vis-a-vis, any action founded, upon, the provisions, encapsulated in the Motor Vehicles Act, rather being limited only to a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, (b) thereupon, the afore contractually limited apposite liability of the insurer, does, in consonance therewith, enjoin this Court to hence fasten the indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, only upto a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and, any liabilities, vis-a-vis, sums of compensation rather falling beyond the afore sums, of hence the afore contractually limited liability, rather being enjoined to be burdened, upon, the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The afore submission obviously, cannot be rejected, as, it is within the domain of the contract of insurer executed, inter se, the aggrieved insurer, and, the owner of the offending vehicle, and, as embodied in Ex. R-4, especially when authenticity thereof, has, remained unchallenged.