NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BHAGOTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE National Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant in S.B. Misc. Appeal No. 2730 of 2006 and respondent No. 3 in appeal No. 3327 of 2006 in short insurance company) has filed the appeal No. 2730 of 2006 under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the award dt. 17.5.2006 of the Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dausa (in short MACT) in Claim Case No. 547/2004 awarding Rs. 7,92,200/ - to the claimants. Bhagoti, Golma, Mukesh, Ram Singh, Priyanka and Bhauri (appellants 1 to 6 in appeal No. 3327 of 2006 and respondents 1 to 6 in appeal No. 2730 of 2006 (in short claimants) have filed the appeal No. 3327 of 2006 for enhancing the compensation awarded by the MACT. Since both the appeals arise from a common award, it will be proper for this Court to decide the appeals by this common order. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.1.1999 Kanipal was travelling in a tractor No. RJ -29 G 0336 instead of RJ 29 R 1796 which was going on Geejgarh Gangapur Road, then near Garhi ki Puliya, a truck No. RJ 29 G 0336 driven by respondent No. 7 driver rashly and negligently collided with the tractor due to which Kanipal sustained serious injuries and consequently died. On the basis of report submitted to SP Dausa on 10.2.1999 an FIR No. 49/1999 regarding the accident was lodged at Police Station Manpur for offence under Sec. 304 -A IPC on 11.2.1999. The claimants filed a claim petition on 16.5.2000 before the MACT. It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased Kanipal was 36 years old and was working on the post of Assistant Station Master and getting Rs. 8000 per month salary. The respondents 7 and 8 driver and owner of the truck filed the reply alleging inter alia that the accident was not caused intentionally and the vehicle was insured with the appellant as such the appellant would be responsible for making the payment of compensation. The insurance company filed the reply alleging inter alia that the driver was not having the valid license at the time of accident, injury report or postmortem report has not been produced on record, which clearly shows that the death was not happened in accident. The entire case has been manipulated in collusion with the respondent driver and owner of truck as such the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The MACT framed as many as four issues. The claimants examined four witnesses and exhibited documents. No witness was produced on behalf of the insurance company. The insurance company filed application under Sec. 170 of the Motor vehicles Act for granting permission to contest the petition on all the grounds available and which was allowed by the MACT vide order dt. 27.10.2005. The MACT after hearing both the parties allowed the claim petition vide award dt. 17.5.2006 and awarded the compensation mentioned above with interest at the rate of 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has contended that the award dt. 17.5.2006 is against the provisions of law and it is legally not sustainable in the eye of law as it is quite clear that the claimants have manipulated the facts itself, which was clear that the claimants have failed to prove the fact that Kanipal had died in accident between truck and tractor. No postmortem report was produced on record and also the first information report was lodged after 16 days of the accident and no satisfactory explanation was given by the claimants for the delay. The MACT had also not properly appreciated the news item published in newspaper dt. 27.1.99 in which it was not mentioned that Kanipal died in accident due to collusion of truck and tractor. The MACT has also considered that if the truck would have been involved in the accident and number of truck would have been noted then there was no reason for not to lodge the report immediately after the accident, whereas the accident was reported by the police on the basis of which news item was published on 27.1.1999, wherein there was no mention of accident by truck. The MACT has not awarded reasonable compensation, but awarded excessive compensation without taking into consideration that the deceased was working on the post of Assistant Station Master and the claimants are getting pension on account of his death, as such the amount of pension should have been taken into consideration while assessing the reasonable compensation, because the amount would be received by the family only because of the death of Kanipal. One member of the family would get the appointment on compassionate ground, as such the dependent would get the same amount on account of the death of Kanipal as such compensating to the dependents to the loss of amount which they were getting for their maintenance. The MACT has awarded interest @ 9% per annum whereas looking to the present rate of interest in bank deposits it should not be more than 6%. The award of the MACT is incorrect in awarding the above compensation mentioned above, hence the award is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the award dt. 17.5.2006 passed by the MACT. The MACT has given reasons after considering the evidence of the parties and the Findings on the issues cannot be set aside. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case I do not think it proper to allow the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants. The MACT awarded an amount of Rs. 7,92,000/ - to the claimants. The findings of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse on all the issues and the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants stand rejected. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants, both are dismissed.