Court No. - 25
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 230 of 1998 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Ramwati & Others Counsel for Appellant :- K.S. Amist Counsel for Respondent :- B.K.Solanki
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
List has been revised.
No one appears for the claimants-respondents.
The counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is present.
The present First Appeal From Order has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 277 of 1995.
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 277 of 1995 was filed by respondent nos. 1 to 7 praying for compensation due to the death of one Bal Kishan on 21.11.1995 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No.
U.P.P. 5787 which was insured with the appellants. The respondent nos. 8 and 9 are the owner and driver of the vehicle and respondent no. 1 is the widow of Bal Kishan while respondent nos. 2 to 7 are the minor daughters of the deceased Bal Kishan. The appellant-Insurance Company was impleaded as defendant no. 3 in the aforesaid claim petition. It was alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was employed in marble and chips industry in Punjab and got Rs. 150/- per day as wages from his employer in addition to expenses for boarding and lodging.
In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 277 of 1995, the Tribunal framed issues regarding the accident and negligence of the driver of the vehicle as well as regarding the liability of the appellant to pay compensation and the amount of compensation to which the claimants were entitled. I am not entering into the details of the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in causing the accident and the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants in as much as the findings of the Tribunal on the aforesaid issues have not been challenged by the appellant and during the arguments, the counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments to the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. It would be sufficient to state that in its judgment and award dated 5.12.1997, the Tribunal recorded a finding that Bal Kishan died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. U.P.P. 5787 and at the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with the appellants and there was no breach of insurance policy by the owner or the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.
So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it was pleaded by the claimant-respondents before the Tribunal that the deceased was employed as a skilled artisan in the marble and chips industry in Punjab and was paid Rs.150/- per day as wages by his employer in addition to expenses for boarding and lodging. In its judgment and award dated 5.12.1997, the Tribunal held that the claimants had proved the employment of the deceased as alleged by them, i.e. he was employed at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day but also held that as the deceased was employed on daily wage basis, therefore, he could have been employed only for 25 days in a month. On the aforesaid basis, the Tribunal held the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,750/- per month and after deducting the personal expenses of the deceased, the Tribunal calculated the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 2,800/- per month. The Tribunal recorded a finding that at the time of death deceased was aged between 30-35 years and, thus, applied a multiplier of 12 while determining compensation. The counsel for the appellant was not able to show any error in the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal or the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. Applying the aforesaid multiplier and after adding Rs.2,000/- as funeral expenses as well as Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium to respondent no. 1 and loss of estate as Rs. 2,500/-, the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,12,700/-. The counsel for the appellant has also not been able to show that the Tribunal has awarded disproportionate amounts under the aforesaid heads.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the judgment and award dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Satyam