Court No. - 25
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 220 of 1996
Appellant :- Sohan Lal & Another Respondent :- Shri Satish Kumar & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Madhav Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Usha Kiran
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
List has been revised. Shri Madhav Jain, counsel for the appellants and Ms.Usha Kiran representing respondent no.2 Insurance Company are present. No one appears for respondent no.1.
In view of the office report dated 27.11.2018, service of notice on respondent no. 1 is deemed sufficient. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. As the appeal is pending in this Court since 1996, the Court has proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 11.10.1995 passed by XII A.D.J/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short referred to as 'Tribunal' ) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.243/93 (Sohan Pal and others versus Satish Kumar and another) pleading that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants by the Tribunal is not just and is also not according to law.
It has been argued by the counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal had erred in awarding a lump sum amount to the claimants/appellants and by not applying the multiplier method and had also not awarded any amount for general damages.
Motor Accident Claim Case No.243/93 was filed by the appellants in the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1988) alleging that one Smt.Bhagwan Devi died on 23.4.1993 due to injuries suffered by her on 16.4.1993 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.UP80 B9766 by its driver. The claimants appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Bhagwan Devi. The respondent no. 1 is the owner of the vehicle and was impleaded as defendant no. 1 in the petition. The respondent no. 2 is the insurer of the vehicle.
The respondent no.1/defendant no. 1 did not appear in the proceedings before the Tribunal and did not file any written statement responding to the allegations made in the claim petition. However, the respondent no. 2/defendant no.2, i.e the Insurance Company contested the case and filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. The Insurance Company also denied its liability to pay compensation on the ground that on the fateful day, the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues. Issue no.1 framed by the Tribunal was as to whether Smt.Bhagwan Devi died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. Issue no.2 framed by the Tribunal was regarding Insurance of the vehicle and Issue no.3 framed by the Tribunal was regarding the amount of compensation, the claimant/appellants were entitled to and the defendant liable to pay the said compensation.
On issue no.1, the Tribunal recorded a finding in favour of the claimants/appellants and held that Smt.Bhagwan Devi had died as a result of an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. The said finding was recorded by the Tribunal relying of the statement of plaintiff witness no.1 who was an eye witness to the incident. It transpires that no evidence was produced by the defendant-respondents in support of the contention that the incident as alleged by the claimants/appellants was false. In view of the aforesaid, there is no error in the findings of the Tribunal regarding the incident and the same is based on evidence on record. In any case, the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal have not been challenged by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the vehicle.
Regarding issue no.2, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.2. The said findings have also not been challenged by the Insurance Company and were admitted by the Insurance Company in the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the said findings of the Tribunal regarding insurance of the vehicle have also attained finality.
However, while considering issue no.3, the Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle and, not the Insurance company, was liable to pay compensation to the claimants/appellants as the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle was not produced before the Tribunal. There is no error in the findings of the Tribunal regarding the liability of the owner of the vehicle, i.e the respondent no.1 to pay compensation to the claimants/appellants.
While considering issue no.3, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of only Rs.25,000/- to the claimants/appellants. While considering issue no.3. The Tribunal has recorded that the deceased was a milk vendor and was also contributing in household works and therefore, the claimants/appellants were entitled to compensation for the death of Smt.Bhagwan Devi. However, the Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount as compensation without assessing the income of the deceased and without applying the multiplier method.
Under Section 168 of the Act, 1988, the Tribunals' are supposed to award just compensation to the claimants. As held by the Supreme Court in Manju Devi and another versus Musafir Paswan & another 2005(1) TAC 609 (SC), multiplier method was the only way by which just compensation can be ascertained. The relevant observation of the Supreme Court in Manju Devi (Supra) in paragraph 2 of the judgment is reproduced below:
"In the case of U.P State Road Trans.Corpn.v.Trilok Chandra, 1996 A.C.J 831: 1996 (2) T.A.C 286 (S.C), it has been held by this Court that there should be no departure from the multiplier method on the ground that payment being made is just compensation. It has been held that the multiplier method must be accepted method for determining and ensuring payment of just compensation as it is the method which brings uniformity and certainty to awards made all over the country. In view of this authority, it will have to be held that the award of compensation had to be made by the multiplier method."
Further, a reading of the judgment and award dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Tribunal would also show that no compensation has been awarded to the claimants/appellants under general damages for example, funeral expenses and the medical expenses incurred by the claimants/appellants between 16.4.1993 and 23.4.1993.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and award dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Tribunal so far as it awards merely Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the claimants/appellants is not according to law and is liable to be set aside. Thus, the judgment and award dated 11.10.1995 passed by the Tribunal on issue no.3 so far it determines compensation to the claimants/appellants is hereby set aside. The mater is remanded back to the Tribunal to pass fresh orders determining the compensation to be awarded to the claimants/appellants after applying the multiplier method and in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.
The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition as directed above as early as possible and after ensuring that proper notices were served on the defendants-respondents.
With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 IB