Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shailendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for claimants-respondents no.1 and 2 and perused the judgment and order impugned.
This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.T. No. 53 of 1997.
The only legal point urged before this Court pertains to the non-existence of any driving licence purportedly held or possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle opposite party no.3- Udaiveer Tyagi (Driver of Truck No. U.G.U.-8058).
Contention is that in this case, as per Form No.54, there is no mention of any such licence having been issued in favour of respondent no.3- Udaiveer Tyagi. It is specific testimony of the witness for the concerned transport department that there is no mention of any renewal as such of any such licence in question in the relevant register meant for renewal of the licences, and in the wake of above, claim is that obviously it cannot be held that the truck driver was holding or possessing a valid and effective driving licence and he ever got the same renewed at any point of time. The driving licence produced is fake and not genuine.
Apart from that, the learned counsel has also challenged the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,28,000/- along with 12 % interest claiming it to be excessive under facts and circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the claimants-respondents has refuted the aforesaid contention by claiming that the witness of the concerned transport department was itself brought by the Insurance Company. As per his testimony, it is nowhere established that the licence is fake. The total exercise required to be undergone in this context was not followed and mere perfunctory reference of certain missing entry in certain register meant and kept for renewal of the licences alone was made before the tribunal that would by no sketch of imagination establish things satisfactorily branding the driving licence to be fake and illegal. In that regard, the tribunal was justified when it held that there was non production of the concerned register meant for renewal of the driving licences and this indicates that the burden of proof as was required to be discharged by the Insurance Company regarding fact pertaining to non renewal of the driving license in question, thus it being fake driving license, was not properly discharged by it. In such scenario, the insurance company itself is to be blamed. Nothing prevented the appellant-insurance company from proving the fact of driving licence being fake. But it tried to establish this particular fact merely by leading verbal testimony and not producing the relevant register before the tribunal.
I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned award dated 18.12.1999, whereby overall compensation amount Rs. 1,28,000/- along with accrued interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded to the claimants-respondent nos.1 and 2- Kishwar Ali and Rahul Khan.
But before proceeding with this case, it would be appropriate in the fitness of things that a sketch of the incidents leading to the filing of the claim petition before the tribunal and this appeal before this Court be referred here for the sake of convenience.
Bare perusal of the record shows that the accident in question allegedly took place on 20.12.1996, when Smt. Neksee (deceased), who was going to purchase fodder for her animals along with her father-in-law sustained injuries by rash and negligent driving (of the offending vehicle) at 11:30 a.m. at place 100 feeta, tri-crossing, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad within Police Station Singhani Gate by Truck No. U.G.U.-8058, thus causing serious injuries to her. She was taken to the government hospital at Ghaziabad and got admitted, where she succumbed to her injuries on 21.12.1996 around 3 a.m. in the night. The matter was reported at the aforesaid police station on 21.12.1996. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Smt. Neksee was done at the mortuary.
On the basis of aforesaid accident, claim has been raised by filing petition that the deceased at the time of the alleged accident was pregnant aged 22 years and she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month from various works including animal husbandry and out of this income, the claimants-respondents were being maintained and they are the dependents of the deceased.
It has been claimed that opposite party no.1, namely respondent no.3 of this appeal- Udaiveer Tyagi was driving the offending vehicle at that point of time being Truck No. U.G.U.-8058. The truck was owned by defendant-respondent no.4- Sri Rajvansh Bajaj and at that relevant point of time, this truck was insured with the present appellant. Under various heads, overall compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 18,50,000/- was demanded as compensation.
Joint written statement was filed by the owner and the driver of the offending Truck No. U.G.U. No.-8058, wherein the factum of accident was denied. In the written statement, the factum of ownership of the truck and the truck being driven by the aforesaid Udaiveer Tyagi was admitted apart from fact that the offending truck was insured with the insurance company- the present appellant. The insurance company also filed its written statement, whereby it denied all the claims and claimed immunity on various counts. After perusing the pleadings of both the sides, the following three issues were framed by the tribunal:-
Issue No.1 related to fact, whether the accident in question was caused by rash and negligent driving of Truck No. U.G.U.-8058 by driving it rashly and negligently by its driver on 20.12.1996 at 11:30 a.m. at place 100 feeta, tri-crossing, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad within Police Station - Singhani Gate ?
Issue no.2 related to fact, as to what amount, if any are the claimants entitled to receive ?
Issue no.3 related to fact, whether the deceased herself contributed towards the accident as has been averred in para no.23 of the written statement of the opposite party no.3- (the present appellant), If yes, its affect ?
In so far as issue no. 1 and issue no.3 are concerned, both these issues being interconnected were decided by common finding by the tribunal.
In so far as finding on issue no.1 is concerned, then both the sides had opportunity to lead evidence and to file documentary proof pros and cons as per their respective claim, which they did.
The tribunal after appreciating the evidence and particularly the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 recorded finding that the accident in question was in fact caused by the aforesaid offending vehicle by driving the same rashly and negligently at the aforesaid time and place within Police Station - Singhani Gate, District - Ghaziabad and there was no contributory negligence whatsoever caused by the deceased (Neksee).
In so far as issue no.2 is concerned, it primarily related to the fact of the amount of compensation, if any, to be awarded to the claimants, then it is noticeable from the award itself that the incident took place in the year 1996 and at that point of time after perusing the testimony and the documentary evidence, it was opined by the tribunal that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the annual income was assessed after slicing off 1/3rd of the overall amount i.e. to say annual income being Rs. 12,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd, it comes to Rs. 7,800/- (1000-350=650 x 12= 7,800/-) per annum. After making point wise calculation as per the aforesaid statistics, the tribunal applied multiplier of 16 to the annual dependency Rs. 7,800/-, thus aggregating to Rs. 1,28,000/-, which finding does not suffers from any infirmity and is liable to be confirmed, at this stage. Accordingly, confirmed.
The next point decided by the tribunal regarding aforesaid finding relates to fact as to who will be the person responsible to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation, when obviously after analytical and analogical approach and after perusing the evidence on record and primarily the testimony produced by the insurance company- the present appellant. On point of effectiveness of the driving licence, it was rightly held by the tribunal that the driving licence in question cannot be held to be either fake or not genuine and this analytical exercise was properly conducted by the tribunal primarily on ground that the relevant document, the licence renewal register of the concerned transport authority was never produced so as to give credence to the claim made by the witness produced by the insurance company on the point of entry made in the renewal register kept for renewal of licences.
Next, the driving licence itself was produced by the driver of the offending truck, which bore on its face, the signature of the concerned transport authority which in fact, issued the driving licence. Under these circumstaces, it was incumbent on the transport authority to have satisfactorily and reasonably denied endorsement of that particular transport authority on the driving licence as such, but this burden was never discharged properly and in view of the fact that claim raised by producing the driving licence itself and the copy of the application for renewal of the licence in qeustion moved before the concerned transport authority and in view of the various directions and views expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases referred in the judgment of the tribunal it recorded finding that the driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving licence, which finding cannot be faulted with, at this juncture, as the scrutiny done by the tribunal appears to be based on material on record and the verbal claim against non renewal does not carry substance.
Considering the age of the deceased and the entirety of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of overall compensation Rs.1,28,000/- carrying 12% interest per annum cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable amount. But it is just compensation.
Consequently, the finding recorded by the claims tribunal in Claim Petition No. 53 of 1997 (Kishwar Ali and another vs. Udaiveer Tyagi and others) on all the three issues is hereby upheld.
Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby rejected.
Office is directed to remit the amount of appeal Rs. 25,000/- back to the tribunal, so that proper compliance of the tribunal's order may be ensured.
Cost easy.
The lower court record may be remitted back to it for ensuring proper compliance.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 S Rawat