Court No. - 26
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 104 of 2000 Appellant :- Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt.Ramadevi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Yasharth Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Yasharth, learned counsel for United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record. Though notice has been served, none has appeared for respondents.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 6.11.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 138 of 1997 whereby awarding a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum as compensation to the claimant.
3. The brief facts of the case is that accident occurred on 1.06.1997 at 8.30 p.m., deceased Mahesh Chandra was travelling by jeep No. U.P. 80-K/7725 from Firozabad to Atmadpur and when said jeep had reached near St. Johns College, Mohmmdabad at about 8:30 p.m. truck No. U.R.K.- 6177 came rashly and negligently and hit said jeep, due to which an accident took place in which deceased sustained fatal injuries and subsequently he summed to it. At the time of death, deceased was 26 years old and earning Rs.4,200/- per month.
4. The grounds urged by Sri Yasharth, Advocate for appellant is that the vehicle in question was registered as a private vehicle and could have been implied only for applying family members or relatives but could not have been used for higher or reward using for it. Higher or reward amounts to approach all policy conditions enumerated in section 147 read with Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1988') and, therefore, the finding of fact by the Tribunal holding as the insurance company liable is barred. As far as compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the compensation is on higher side and the rate of interest is 12% which is also bad in the eyes of law. It is submitted that normal rate of interest even in the year 2000 was fluctuating between 6% to 9%. The ground raised that it was used as a taxi the factual scenario has found by the Tribunal is that the insurance company was unable to prove by leading evidence that in fact the persons who were in the taxi had highered the taxi even if it was highered, it was not on record that they had made over any payment for their junior.
5. Learned Trial Court has relied on the decisions prevailing in those days. The fact that there is no breach of fundamental policy, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Hence this ground raised in the memo of appeal and canvassed here fails. It has not been proved that Section 147 of Act, 1988 defence is proved.
6. This takes the Court to the issue of compensation, it is rightly pointed out by Yasharth, learned counsel for appellant that the rate of interest could not have been 12%. However while going through the compensation, it is clear that the deceased was 26 years of age, the Tribunal has considered the income as Rs.15,00/- deducted Rs.500/- for personal expenses granted Rs.12,000/- as annual dependency and granted a total sum of Rs.2,16,000/- for future income and meagre amount of Rs.7,000/- under the head of funeral charges and loss of consortium. This amount does not require any modification as it cannot be said that compensation granted is on higher side, the said amount of future income is compensated @ 12% is granted.
7. In view of above, the appeal stands dismissed.
8. This Court is thankful to Sri Yasharth, learned counsel for appellant for getting very old matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 Shubhankar