HON. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J.
The insurer of bus UP 81W/9888 has challenged the award dated 12.4.2012 passed by MACT/Addl. District Judge Court no. 2, Ghaziabad in MAC Case no. 94 of 2009, whereby compensation of Rs. 4,41,500/- have been awarded to the respondents no. 1 to 4 on account of death of 29-years' old Smt. Parveen in the motor accident.
It was alleged by the claimants that on 11.1.2009 Smt. Parveen along with her husband was going to her village from Hapur on scooter no. MP 17H/2970 and when they reached in front of Mangal Bhawan on Meerut Road, Hapur the undertaking bus no. UP 81W/9888 of respondent no. 3 hit the scooter from behind, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. She sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Khan Nursing Home, Hapur where she was declared dead. At the time of accident the offending bus was being plied under respondent no. 3 and it was insured with the appellant. The accident was reported to the police. The claimants being the husband and children of the deceased preferred claim for an award of Rs.17.25 lacs. The opposite parties contested the claim. The owner of the bus stated that on the date of accident the bus was under control of respondent no. 3 through an agreement between the parties and it was insured with the appellant. The appellant claimed that on the date of accident the bus in question was under control of UPSRTC, so they are not liable to indemnify the award. The claimants examined Usman PW 1 and filed several papers. The opposite party no. 3 examined Sahastra Pal Singh DW 1 and had filed the copy of agreements. The learned Tribunal after hearing parties' counsel held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and awarded compensation 2 as stated above. It was further observed that the claimants were ready to compromise the case in Lok Adalat for Rs.4,25,000/- but due to inaction and non-cooperation by the officers of the appellant, the compromise could not be materialized, so the learned Tribunal directed that the amount of compensation together with interest over and above Rs. 4,25,000/- may be realized by the appellant from the present Divisional Manager of the appellant. Aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that that the age of deceased has been incorrectly taken; that amount of compensation is highly excessive and without any basis; that at the time of accident the bus in question was under control of UPSRTC and as the appellant was not a party to the agreement between the owner of the bus and UPSRTC so the appellant is not liable to indemnify the award and that the learned Tribunal has erred in fixing personal responsibility of the officer of the appellant to pay the amount of compensation over and above Rs.4.25 lacs, as the case could not be decided in Lok Adalat.
It has been found that the deceased lady was aged about 29 years, so multiplier of '18' has been applied in view of 2nd Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month has been taken on the basis of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of Lata Wadhwa and another Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3218. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the annual income of the deceased to calculate the amount of compensation to Rs. 4,32,000/-. A further sum of Rs. 9,500/- have been awarded for funeral expanses, loss of estate and loss of consortium to her husband. Thus, in all compensation of Rs. 4,41,000/- had been awarded to the claimants, who are young husband and three minor children of the deceased. We do not find any illegality in the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.
The dispute about liability to indemnify the award, when the bus insured by the appellant was with in the undertaking of UPSRTC stood resolved by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 5901/2011 U. P. State Road 3 Transport Corp. Vs. Kulsum and others. In this case also similar set of facts were involved, so the principles laid down by the Apex Court in this case squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the law on this issue.
Now as regards fixing responsibility of the divisional manager of the appellant to pay the amount of compensation over and above Rs. 4.25 lacs, the appellant has challenged this finding of the Tribunal although it was in their favour, but the appellant company has come up to shield his erring officer, who has caused loss to the appellant by not compromising the case in the Lok Adalat. The learned Tribunal has given the following reasons for aforesaid direction, which is reproduced as under:
"chek da0 dh vksj ls fn;s x;s mDr rdZ dks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k [email protected] mRrj izns'k LVsV jksM VªkaliksVZ dkj0 cuke dqylqe vkfn o layXu flfoy vihy la0 5902 ls [email protected] esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ,oa vkns'k fnukafdr 25&7&2011 esa fn;s x;s egRoiw.kZ fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij cy ugha feyrk gSA mDr fu.kZ; ds iSjk 36 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Li"V fd;k x;k fd orZeku izdj.k ds leku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,d fof'k"V vof/k ds fy, dkjiksjs'ku okgu dk Lokeh gks tk;sxk vkSj ;fn ewy Lokeh }kjk okgu dk chek djk;k x;k gS rks ;g le>k tk;sxk fd okgu ds lkFk tks chek ikfylh vfLrRo esa gS] og Hkh dkjiksjs'ku dks vrafjr gqbzZ gS vkSj ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa chek dEiuh izfrdj dh vnk;xh ds nkf;Ro ls ugha cp ldrh gSA mDr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; {kjk dkjiksjs'ku }kjk ;ksftr leLr vihysa Lohdkj djrs gq,] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks fujLr fd;k x;k gS vkSj chek dEiuh dk izfrdj vnk djus dk nkf;Ro gksuk dgk gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; ds i'pkr] ;g ns[krs gq;s fd foi{kh la0 2 chek da0 izLrqr izdj.k dks yksd vnkyr ds le{k fuLrkfjr djus esa lg;ksx nsxh] i=koyh yksd vnkyr ds le{k j[kh x;h fdUrq ;g ns[kk x;k fd chek da0 ds {ks=h; izcU/kd dk ;g Li"V funsZ'k v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa dks gS fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; ds i'pkr Hkh chek dEiuh ,sls ekeyksa esa yksd vnkyr ls fuLrkfjr ugha djuk pkgrh] ftlesa [email protected] iz0 lMd ifjogu fuxe i{kdkj gksA yskd vnkyr esa ;g Hkh Li"V gqvk fd foi{kh la0 2 ds {ks=h; izca/kd ds Kku esa ekuuh; mPpre 4 U;k;ky; dh O;oLFkk gS fdUrq mlds i'pkr Hkh {ks=h; izcU/kd }kjk vlg;ksx dk joS;k vdkj.k viuk;s tkus dk dksbZ vFkZ ugha Fkk] tcfd chek dEiuh ds vf/koDrk us yksd vnkyr ds le{k ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj chek da0 ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dk lg;ksx visf{kr Fkk vkSj yksd vnkyr ds le{k ;kphx.k lqyg le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij 4]25][email protected]& :i;s izfrdj dh /kujkf'k chek dEiuh }kjk vnk djus ij lUrq"V FksA yksd vnkyr ,d fo'ks"k iz;kstu gS rFkk mlls lHkh lEc) i{kdkjksa dk lg;ksx visf{kr gS vkSj izfrekg fof'k"V :i ls eksVj okgu nq?kZVuk ds ekeyksa dks yksd vnkyr ds ek/;e ls fuikVkus dk iz;kl U;k;ky; dk jgrk gS] fdUrq fcuk fdlh i;kZIr vk/kkj ds ;g ns[kk x;k gS fd foi{kh la0 2 fn U;w bafM;k bU'kks0 da0 fy0 ds e.Myh; izcU/kd ,oa muds v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh tks yksd vnkyr esa viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djkrs gS] os fdlh u fdlh cgkus yksd vnkyr ds ek/;e ls ekeyksa dk fuLrkj.k djkus esa :fp ugha j[k jgs gS] tSlk fd izR;sd yksd vnkyr esa U;k;ky; }kjk ns[kk x;k gS] tcfd vU; chek dEiuh ds vf/kdkjhx.k dk visf{kr lg;ksx jgrk gS vkSj muds ekeysa yksd vnkyr ls fuLrkfjr gksrs gSA fn U;w bafM;k bU'kks0 da0 fy0 ds vf/dkjhx.k dk dbZ ekeyksa esa yksd vnkyr esa vlg;ksx fcuk fdlh i;kZIr vk/kkj ds jgk gSA"
Learned counsel for the appellant could not give any plausible explanation for the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Now-a-days Lok Adalats are being organized in every district under the directions of the statutory body i.e. State Legal Services Authority with a view to provide speedy and cheaper justice to the litigants. Priority is given to motor accident claim cases, as many thousands of the people are victims of road accidents every year and timely justice is their right. Compromise in the case is always beneficial to both the parties. In accident claim cases the claimants get the amount of compensation without any further appeal quickly, whereas the insurance company is also benefited in terms of money. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the insurance company and its officers to get more and more cases decided in Lok Adalats with zeal. Raising hyper-technical pleas are unwarranted. In the instant case, the law was settled by the Apex Court in the case of Kulsum (supra), but the officers of the appellant were not ready to follow the mandate of the Apex Court while they were duty bound to obey the same. The insurance 5 companies should not behave like a ordinary rustic litigant. There are several competent lawyers and law officers in their armory to guide them on legal issues. In the instance case the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the officers of the appellant were not ready even to abide the opinion of their advocate. Award of more than Rs. 4.25 lacs in the instant case has certainly caused loss to the appellant due to callous attitude of its officers who perform their duty under the directions of the divisional manager. The insurance company deals with public money, so they are duty bound to take its care like a prudent trustee. They cannot act whimsically. The Court or the Tribunal has the responsibility of taking care of the public interest as well. In these circumstances, we find that the learned Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction in giving directions, impugned by the appellant.
In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, dismissal of appeal would not affect the rights of the claimants.
The Registry is directed to remit the statutory amount to the concerned Tribunal within four weeks.
July 19, 2012 AK/