1. Admit.
With the consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana in M.A.C.P. No.289/2003 whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part and the appellants, original claimants, were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,86,250/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
3. The legal heirs of deceased Prahladji Thakor had preferred the aforesaid claim petition in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 26.02.2003 at around 1845 hrs involving the Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-18-A-5824.
4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 17 instead of 15 in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in holding that the liability of respondent no.2-Insurance Company was limited.
5. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. On the aspect of liability, it was submitted on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company that the insured had not paid premium to cover unlimited liability. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the liability of respondent no.2-Insurance Company is limited.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears that there is no dispute between the parties so far as the issue regarding assessment of monthly income of deceased is concerned. However, on the aspect of multiplier, it appears that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier of 16 instead of 15 in view of the decision rendered in Sarla Verma's case (supra). Thus, if the multiplier of 16 is adopted, the claimants shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.22,500/-.
7. On the aspect of liability, it does not appear from the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle that the insured had paid necessary premium for coverage of unlimited liability. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathilal and others, AIR 1999 SC 623, it has been held that for liability to be unlimited, clear specification to that effect in policy and payment of separate premium in respect thereof is necessary. Mere fact that the column against unlimited liability in policy was left blank does not mean that the liability is unlimited. Considering the facts of the case and the principle rendered in Nathilal's case (supra), the liability of respondent-Insurance Company cannot be said to be unlimited in this case. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in holding the liability of Insurance Company to be limited.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants, original claimants, shall be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.22,500/- [Rupees Twenty two thousand five hundred only] along with interest at the rate of 07.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top