Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No.48 of 1994 Appellant :- N.I.A. Co.
Respondent :- Smt. Prabha Gupta Counsel for Appellant :- K.L.Grover,B.C.Nath,Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- R.K.Kakkar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Singh for the appellant.
2. By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment/award dated 22.10.1993 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, in M.A.C. No.116 of 1991 awarding a sum of Rs.5,13,500/- as compensation to the claimant.
3. The appellant have felt aggrieved on the ground that the award of Rs.5,13,500/- is bad. The vehicle in which the deceased was travelling is said to be a vehicle for carrying of distribution of newspapers from one station to other and it could not have given ride to the deceased and, therefore, there was breach of policy conditions.
4. While going through the judgment, it was never pleaded before the Tribunal that he was a paid passenger. I have not adverted to the facts. It is submitted that the vehicle could not have been plied in contravention of the principles of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is submitted that it was a case of contributory negligence and not sole negligence of the driver of the Jeep. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded is on the higher side.
5. It would be necessary for us to advert to Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Jeep driver drove the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner. According to the driver of the Jeep, the truck driver suddenly applied brake. The back light was not working. It is submitted that there is negligence of the truck driver to have stopped the truck. However, while going through the record, it was early morning 05.00 a.m. when the accident occurred. There is no question why the driver of truck should and not kept the light on of the Truck. The Jeep driver should have kept it fare distance and having not such a fare distance, he is a person who has largely contributed to the accident having taken place but he was not the sole person responsible. The driver of the truck has not entered into the witness box and, therefore, also adverse inference is drawn against him.
6. As far as infraction of the policy condition is concerned, it was proved that the jeep had proper permit it could have 7 persons and, therefore, the submission that there was breach of policy conditions cannot be accepted in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swarn Singh and others, 2004
(1) TAC 321.
7. The deceased was 32 years of age. He had ownership of Gupta Publicity. The claimants had claimed Rs.30,46,000/-. The post-mortem report showed his age to be 32 years. He was owner of a newspaper. The tribunal has not considered any amount under the head of future loss of income. The income-tax return also will not permit me to take a different view than than taken by the Tribunal. Though the multiplier could not have been more than 18, grant of multiplier of 20 is bad but non-grant of any amount under the head of future loss of income would get compensated hence no fault can be found with the amount awarded. The Insurance company may claim 10% of the amount from the owner or the Insurance company of the Truck.
8. The appeal is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Irshad