1. None for the appellants even when the list is revised.
2. Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.
3. This appeal has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved of the award dated November 10th, 2000 by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ballia in M.A.C.P. No.109 of 1994 on the ground that Tribunal has arbitrarily awarded only a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the no fault liability rejecting the claim of the claimants without any basis in an arbitrary and illegal manner.
4. Reading from the award, it is submitted that on 02.10.1994, Rajwant Singh @ Suchit son of Raj Kishore Singh had gone for a morning walk, when he was hit by a truck bearing Registration No.U.G.H.467 loaded with 'gitti' and driven by Lal Pratap, when said truck was travelling to Bansdih from Ballia due to rash and negligent driving.
5. Deceased was a bachelor, a student of 10th Class and his marksheet was produced on record to show that he was a student of Government Inter College, Ballia. It has come on record that factum of accident was proved by leading evidence of P.W.-1, Jai Prakash Singh, an eye-witness to the incident. P.W.-2, Raj Kishore, father of the deceased corroborated age of the deceased and held that FIR was lodged as per the information given by Jai Prakash Singh at about 7:00 a.m. However, learned Tribunal arbitrarily after holding that accident took place in morning at about 7:00 a.m., when Rajwant Singh was going for morning walk on the alleged road, took a U-turn and posed a question, whether a road was place to go for morning walk, and whether morning walk can be taken on such a road without any interruption. In an arbitrary manner, this question was posed and with more arbitrariness, answer is given that if the motor vehicle is passing over the road, then somebody moving on a road with an object to perform exercise, undertakes risk of death and, therefore, motor driver or the motor vehicle cannot be held responsible for the compensation in the said accident.
6. This finding is perverse and without any basis. I have perused the record. Insurance policy was produced which is on record and was exhibited as 29-Ga, it bears registration number of the truck so also the engine number, chassis number of the truck, besides makes a mention of the number of cover note.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that they had not admitted the cover note and had denied the same treating it to be fake, but fact of the matter is that, Insurance Company had filed a generalized written statement denying the fact of accident.
8. In para-5 of special statements, Insurance Company denied the factum of accident and also denied that on the said cover note, there is no details i.e. either the name of the Branch nor any details regarding the Bima Insurance Policy. Therefore, it is submitted that policy was fake. It is also true that Insurance Company did not bother to examine any witness to deny the factum of Insurance, whereas, it is evident that on the insurance policy, code of the Inspector (295) is mentioned, Branch Code (421102) is mentioned so also Agency Code (45384) is mentioned. It contains signature of duly constituted Attorney and makes a mention of 31.01.1994 as a date of issue. There is specific mention of the address of the Branch, namely New India Insurance Company Ltd., Station Road, PIN Code-231210 and District-Sonbhadra (U.P.). Thus, when all these details are mentioned on the policy, then merely denying the factum of issuance of a cover note was not sufficient for the Insurance Company and Insurance Company was required to be more vigilant to produce additional evidence by examining some responsible officer from the Branch Office at Sonbhadra to demonstrate that said cover note was never issued from their Branch. Insurance Company having failed to produce any cogent evidence in this regard is estopped from taking a plea that cover note was not issued from one of their offices. Their blanket denial will also be of no help in the light of the above facts and details as have been noted in regard to the cover note. Therefore, the cryptic award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deserves to be set aside and is set aside.
9. Under similar facts and circumstances, this Court has awarded compensation on structured formula.
10. In case of Lata Wadhwa and others Vs. State of Bihar and others; 2001 (8) SCC 197, in case of young school going children losing their life, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs.3.60,000/-(three lakhs and sixty thousand) for an accident which took place on 03.03.1989 with an additional sum of Rs.50,000/-, thus, making the total amount payable at Rs.4,10,000/-(four lakhs and ten thousand) for each of the claimants of the deceased children.
11. In case of Lata Wadhwa and others (supra), Court was dealing with children, who were in the age group 10 to 15 years and were students of Class-6th to Class-10th was considered and their contribution was considered at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Hon'ble Supreme Court applied multiplier of 15 taking total compensation to Rs.3,60,000/-(three lakhs and sixty thousand) and awarded additional sum of Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) under the conventional heads taking total sum to be Rs.4,10,000/-(four lakhs and ten thousand). When same guideline is adopted, then I have no hesitation to hold that claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-(four lakhs and ten thousand) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.
12. This claim amount will be jointly and severally payable by the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing Registration No.U.G.H.467.
13. In above terms, appeal is allowed and disposed off.
14. Tribunal's record be sent back.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 Ashutosh