NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SHANKER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE deceased Devilal was working as a driver with Babulal. He was paid monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/ -. On 27. 4. 98 at about 5:00 P. M. , he was driving the jeep no. RJ19c 6488 belonging to Babulal. All of sudden one camel cart came from the opposite side, therefore, Devilal immediately applied the breaks but due to failure of breaks, he met with the accident and received serious injuries, therefore, he was immediately taken to the hospital at Phalodi and from there, he was referred to Jodhpur where he died. His widow Bidami Devi and his father Shankar Lal filed the claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Phalodi (for short "the Tribunal" ). On behalf of claimants Shankar Lal, Raj Kumar and Raja Ram - three witnesses were examined before the Tribunal in support of their claim petition. However, though opportunity was given to the respondents, they have not preferred to examine any witness. After considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence led before it, the learned Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled for total claim of Rs. 4,10,000/- instead of Rs. 20,66,500/- claimed by them. Thus, by its award dated 27. 1. 99, the learned Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the claimants. This has been challenged by the petitioner - Insurance Company before this Court by way of this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Though, this petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. THE scope of which is narrow and limited. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim (1), even errors of law committed by the subordinate Courts cannot be corrected by the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT is an admitted that against the award passed by the learned Tribunal, statutory appeal lies under Section 173 of the Act within 90 days before this court from the date of award. IT is surprising that instead of filing a regular appeal under Section 173 of the act within the period of limitation i. e. 90 days, the Insurance Company has preferred to file writ petition before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution as stated earlier. Therefore, only on this ground alone, this petition was required to be dismissed because, in my opinion, the petitioner Insurance company cannot be allowed to frustrate the intention of legislature by circumventing the provisions of law by filing this petition instead of filing the statutory appeal before this Court.

(3.) THERE is also no substance in the submission of learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the petitioner about the multiplier of seventeen years applied by the learned Tribunal because the new Chapter is amended in the Act of 1988 itself and as per the Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act, if the age of the victim was not exceeding 25 years, then he would be entitled for seventeen years multiplier. Not only that learned counsel Mr. H. R. Panwar also pointed out a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Trilok Chandra & Ors. (3) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 in a case where the victim was only 20 years in view of the provisions of Section 163-A read with Second Schedule. Thus, there is a clear answer to this submission of Mr. Mehta. Hence, this submission of Mr. Mehta is also rejected.