NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HALEEMA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Haleema Begum, respondent No. 1 herein and her husband Gh. Mohd. Shafi, being legal heirs of deceased Abdul Rahim Bhat, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar (hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on account of death of Abdul Rahim Bhat, who died in a road accident on 27.8.1998 while travelling in bus No. JK 01-6795 at Jangalwar Nalla, Thathri, when he was coming down from the said bus. It was pleaded that Om Parkash, driver of the bus, was negligent in not stopping the bus when the deceased was alighting from it. Learned Tribunal framed various issues. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition. The appellant insurance company contested the claim petition and raised number of objections and pleaded that driver was not negligent in driving the bus and the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The Tribunal after recording the evidence held that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Om Parkash, driver. The Tribunal rejected the claim of Mohd. Shafi as being not the legal heir of the deceased but accepted the claim petition qua Haleema Begum and passed an award of Rs. 3,27,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. It was further held that appellant insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and it has to satisfy the award being insurer of the bus. Aggrieved of the award, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company.

(2.) Mr. C.S. Gupta, learned counsel for appellant has raised twofold contentions. His first contention is that claim petition filed by claimant Haleema Begum was not maintainable. According to him, Haleema Begum was not dependent legal representative of the deceased. He submitted that claimant Haleema Begum is married with Mohd. Shafi and she was residing in her matrimonial house, therefore, she is not entitled to the compensation. In support of his submissions he relied upon Sultan Lone v. Akbar Gar, III J&KLR 2001 (Smvt.) 189; Kirtikant D. Vadidaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479; Padma Devi v. U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn., 1988 ACJ 667 (Allahabad); T.S. Rukmani v. M.B. Aiyappa, 2004 ACJ 909 (Karnataka); N. Lakshmi v. Pichaiammal, 1987 ACJ 31 (Madras); Gurdial Kaur v. Atma Singh, 1987 ACJ 245 (P&H); Gujarat State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, 1987 ACJ 561 (SC); Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. v. P. Raghavaiah, 1989 ACJ 622 (AP); Nathi Singh v. Vimlesh Gupta, 1989 ACJ 1128 (Allahabad); Chameli Devi v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1990 ACJ 482 (P&H) and Shiv Kumar v. Raj Kumar, 1999 ACJ 1417 (P&H). The second contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on higher side by considering the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000 per month. He contended that there is no evidence on record to show that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error while applying the multiplier, as the multiplier has to be adopted by taking into consideration the age of the deceased as well as of claimant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the deceased Abdul Rahim was not having any son or daughter except the claimant Haleema Begum. He submitted that claimant Haleema Begum, after the marriage was residing along with the deceased as khana nishin. He submitted that khana nishin daughter has all the rights and duties as that of a son. He contended that the claimant being the legal heir of the deceased is entitled to the compensation. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the deceased, claimant as also the income of the deceased while passing the award.