UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ARATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) ON 20.10.2000, one Swapan Mandai, son of Lal Mohan Mandai of village -Amjhore, District -Dhanbad died, when a Dumper (BR -17A -7477) coming from opposite direction dashed against his scooter. In this regard Ballapur P. S. Case No. 76 of 2000 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code and after Investigation charge sheet against driver of the dumper, namely, Shankar Prasad Verma, son of late Subir Verma was submitted for the aforesaid offence. In paragraph 12 of the written statement United India Insurance Company, the insurer of the dumper in question specifically stated that driver of the dumper had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It appears that a photo copy of the driving licence was brought on record. The owner of the dumper, though appeared in the claim case, but did not file any written statement. Insurance Company also in course of trial, did not question genuineness of the driving licence, The deceased was 25 year's old. Annual dependency was fixed at Rs. 1400/ - per month and after deducting 1/3rd there from towards his personal expenses and applying 15 multiplier, total amount of compensation was calculated at Rs. 2,52,000/ -. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 5000/ - for loss of consortium, Rs. 2000/ - for funerel expenses and Rs. 2500/ - for loss of estate were also granted along with interest @, 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till payment. In I.A. No. 1778 of 2001 at flag 'A' purporting to have been filed under Order 41, rule 27 of the Code in the present appeal, the appellant prayed to take photocopy of report of District Transport Officer, Lohardaga, dated 29.6.2001 that driving licence in question was not issued from his office in additional evidence. In absence of such pleading of the insurer in the claim case, I.A. at flag 'A' is not maintainable and is rejected. We also find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.