JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava and M.P. Singh, JJ.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant.
2. The insurer appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act feeling aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 1,98,800 to the claimants-respondents on account of the untimely death of Chandra Bhushan Tripathi, aged about 50 years in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle which had been insured by the present appellant.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the offending vehicle a truck bearing registration No. UP 77A-4191 was not involved in the accident and has tried to assail the findings of the Claims Tribunal returned against the appellant on this aspect of the case. What has been urged by the counsel for the appellant is that the two eyewitnesses, who had been examined in support of their case to prove that the aforesaid truck was, in fact, the offending motor vehicle which had been rashly and negligently driven resulting in the accident which had caused the death of Chandra Bhushan Tripathi, could not be relied upon.
4. It may be noticed that in spite of the full opportunity having been provided, neither the owner nor the insurer had led any evidence to rebut the eyewitnesses account referred to hereinabove. From the cross-examination of the aforesaid two eyewitnesses nothing damaging could be extracted which could negative the case of the claimants. Further, the Tribunal had the privilege of watching the demeanour of the aforesaid witnesses and taking into account the relevant facts which had been brought on the record, had relied upon the eyewitnesses taking their evidence to be of much relevance. No such compelling circumstance has been pointed out which could justify interference in the assessment of the evidence by the Tribunal.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the Tribunal on the question of involvement of the offending motor vehicle can be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference therein by this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has next contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the deceased was having an income of Rs. 2,100 p.m. In the aforesaid connection, the Tribunal had taken into account the fact that the deceased besides being employed in a private roadways was also doing some business.
7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances as brought on record, the Tribunal while rejecting the case of the claimants about the deceased having an income of Rs. 6,000 p.m. had determined the income to be Rs. 2,100 p.m. No such legal infirmity in the aforesaid finding could be pointed out which may justify interference therein by this Court. The Tribunal had found the extent of dependency taking into account the number of the family members to be Rs. 1,400 p.m. and had adopted the multiplier of 11. The quantum of compensation awarded does not appear to be excessive.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further urged that in the present case, only the photocopy of the driving licence had been filed which was not admissible. The contention is that the Tribunal has overlooked that the offending motor vehicle was being driven by a driver who was not having a valid licence and, therefore, there was a breach of the terms and conditions subject to which the policy had been issued covering the risk.
9. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that there was no breach of the terms and conditions subject to which the policy had been issued covering the risk.
10. In the present case, the insurer appellant was required to discharge the statutory liability cast upon it for the payment of the awarded amount to the claimants. The inter se dispute between the owner-insured and the present appellant in regard to any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy could be decided in appropriate proceedings initiated by the insurer appellant against the owner-insured after the amount of compensation had been paid to the claimants.
11. So far as the claimants are concerned on the findings returned by the Tribunal, referred to hereinabove, no interference is called for in the impugned award by this Court.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine leaving it open to the insurer appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings for the refund of the amount paid to the claimants from the owner-insured in accordance with law.
13. As prayed, amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited in this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal so that it may be adjusted against the amount to be paid to the claimants.