1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 20.05.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad at Navsari in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 324 of 1989 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum 150000/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 18.05.1988, Ramanbha Kikabhai Patel was returning to his home by riding his motor cycle No. GRD3749 on the left side with moderate speed. When he was approaching the place of accident, one vehicle GRG 1227 came in a rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed dashed with motor cycle. As a result of this, he sustained serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Therefore the legal heirs filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed. This appeal is at the instance of claimants for enhancement of compensation.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in considering the loss only to the tune of Rs. 1000/ per month on account of loss of supervision of the deceased; that income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 3000/ per month; that 1/4th should have been deducted towards personal and living expenses. According to him, by considering the income of Rs. 300/ per month and 1/4th deduction towards personal and living expense, the loss of dependency benefit 2250/ per month and Rs. 27000/ per year.
4.0 Learned advocate for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Saha V. Rannu Sarkar and another, reported in 1995 ACJ 353 wherein it is held that in case the Insurance Company admitted to have copies of insurance policy, but did not choose to file the same in support of their defence of limited liability, adverse inference can be drawn against the insurance company and it is liable for the entire compensation awarded.
5.0 Learned advocate for the respondent supported the judgement and award of the learned Tribunal. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd versus Nathilal and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 623. wherein in para 6 it is held as under:
6. A perusal of the Insurance Policy, which has been exhibited through the witness examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, clearly shows that the Policy was in respect of seven passengers and one driver. The premium under PartB of Schedule of Premium paid as against the seven passengers at Rs. 12/ per passenger was shown as Rs.84/ and an additional sum of Rs. 8/ for the driver. In addition to this, a premium of Rs. 180/ was paid towards liability to public risk. As against unlimited liability to column, no premium was paid as is evident from the Policy. The mere fact that the column against unlimited liability was not filled, will not automatically lead to the inference that the liability was unlimited in the absence of any special premium paid towards that claim.
6.0 Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
7.0 As regards income and other aspects are concerned, the income is said to be from agriculture. However there is no definite proof for the same on record. In absence of any proof the Tribunal has taken income at Rs.1000/ per month. Looking to the age the multiplier of 16 is taken, which is also just and proper. I have also considered the amounts awarded under other heads. Learned Advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out that the same are on lower side.
8.0 I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*