SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. RAMAVATAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988') has been filed against the award dated 27.08.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter 'the MACT') whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent -claimant Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter 'the claimants') has been allowed and compensation of Rs. 6,85,000/ - has been awarded with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 16.03.2012 till the date of payment for the death of Leela Devi Sharma, age 30 years, in an accident of 01.02.2012 involving a motor vehicle insured with the appellant -Shriram General Insurance Company (hereinafter 'the Insurance Company).

(2.) COUNSEL for the Insurance Company submitted that a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 can be filed only in the event the death occurs on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the instant case, the accident had occurred on account of mechanical failure in the offending vehicle. Counsel further submitted that since the insured has already sold the offending vehicle to one Hemraj, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the person whose name was not substituted as the inured. It was further submitted that the learned MACT without any cogent evidence has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,650/ - which is on the higher side. Counsel submitted that the learned MACT seriously erred while assessing the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 3,490/ - p.m. by only deducting 1/4th of the assessed income inasmuch as the husband of the deceased was not dependant upon the deceased. Contending that the learned MACT has wrongly adopted the multiplier of 16, counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

(3.) I find no force in any of the contentions of the counsel for the Insurance Company. From the pleadings and statement of Ramavatar Sharma (AW -1), husband of the deceased Leela Devi, as also statement of Laxminarayan (AW -2), brother -in -law of the deceased, who was travelling in the offending vehicle and suffered an injury himself in the accident as also the filing of the challan against the driver of the offending vehicle, it was adequately established on the state of preponderance of probabilities that the offending vehicle No. RJ -20 -T -0825 insured with the Insurance Company was being rashly and negligently driven by the driver and had consequently been involved in the accident. There is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident or that the accident was in the category of an inevitable one consequent to which negligence could not be attributed resulting in the very claim petition not being maintainable. I also find no force in the submission of the counsel for the Insurance Company that as on 01.02.2012 the vehicle had been sold on 05.12.2011 during the period of contract of insurance i.e. 11.05.2011 to 10.05.2012 by Mahaveer Meena to one Hemraj Sharma, the policy of insurance was void qua the purchaser and thus the appellant -Insurance Company was not liable. The submission made is without regard to the provision of Section 157(1) of the Act of 1988 which provides that if in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued, transfers to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of transfer. Explanation to Section 157(1) of the Act of 1988 declares that the deemed transfer in terms of Section 157(1) would include transfer of rights and liabilities of the said certificate of insurance and also policy of insurance. Sub -section (2) of Section 157 of the Act of 1988, to my mind, is a mere procedural provision and would not takeaway the statutory liability of Insurance Company where a certificate of insurance issued by it is currency at the time of the accident. There is no force in the contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company on this count. I am also of the considered view that in the absence of any concrete evidence with regard to the income of the deceased Leela Devi, the learned MACT cannot be said to have exceeded its jurisdiction or acted arbitrarily or perversely in taking the deceased to be earning an assumptive income of Rs. 4,650/ - p.m. That to my mind, was a reasonable estimation of the contribution made by the deceased as house wife in -charge of running of a household taking care of three minor children aside of her husband. Deduction of 1/4 of the assumed income on account of personal expenses of the deceased also appears to be reasonable in view of the fact that from the income status of the family of the deceased it appears that they belong to the lower middle class and in the context of the cultural tradition of this country, the deceased as a wife and household quite obviously contributed much more to the running of the household than on expenses over herself. Deduction of 1/4 of the amount from the meagerly assumed income of Rs. 4,650/ - p.m. as the income of the deceased, to my mind, is quite reasonable and does not warrant any interference. Aside of the aforesaid, an award of Rs. 6,85,000/ - for the death of a 35 years old woman with three minor children aged 14, 10, & 7 years respectively cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. The replacement cost of the services and contribution to the household as wife and mother cannot be underestimated as sought by the appellant -Insurance Company. The award is eminently just and fair. It warrants no interference.