Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 508 of 1993 Appellant :- M/S U.I.I.Co.Ltd.
Respondent :- I.M.L.Srivastava And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldeep Narain,K.S.Amist Counsel for Respondent :- R.C.Gupta
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard Shri KS Amist learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Awadhesh Singh, holding brief of Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the claimant-respondent.
This is an appeal of the year 1993.
It is submitted that the claimants were not entitled to any amount for the death of Chintamani Srivastava. It is submitted that finding relating to the negligence of diriver of Truck No.UAJ 2986 was bad. The driver was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner rather the cyclist-deceased was the author of the accident. In the alternative, it is submitted that he has contributed to the accident having taken place and the same fact has been proved.
It is further submitted that the driver of the truck was not holding a licence to drive a medium or heavy goods vehicle and, therefore, the Insurance Company should have been exonerated as they have proved that the licence was for driving light motor vehicle.
The counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was on a higher side as the claimant was not dependant on the deceased. The income of the deceased has wrongly been assessed to be 15,00 and the monthly dependecy could not be multiplied by 22. The non pecuniary amount is also granted exorbitantly.
There are two fold submission as far as the licence being not valid is concerned, namely,that there was no endorsement of permitting to drive medium goods vehicle. The licence, which was produced, was of some other person. However, the document was produced that the person, who was examined has not seen the licence and that the licence is fake is sought to be proved by the evidence of DW1-Pramod Kumar. In his oral testimony, he has submitted that the driver Ram Sumer Pal's driving licence was given to him, which was for light motor vehicle and DCM TOYOTO is a medium goods vehicle and the said licence was given by an advocate and not by the driver and the driving licence as Ex.61G and the endorsement on 30.11.1990 and therefore the same cannot prove. It is further proved that the licence was of a person driving vehicle and not anybody else. Even if we consider the licence produced it cannot be said that there is any breach of policy condition. It has not been proved that the vehicle what was the laden weight of the said vehicle. The said witness could testify as to from what date the licence was effected. The owner gave the licence with an endorsement and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. Record of the case shows that on the date of accident, there was an endorsement and, therefore, the said submission cannot be accepted as it was not proved. The RTO officer had opined that in the month of March, no such licence was issued however, the licence has been effective thereafter and the finding of the Tribunal is against the Insurance Company, which has not been proved here also and the said submission is rejected. Therefore, recovery rights cannot be granted.
The deceased was 48 years of age at the time of accident, his income has been considered as Rs.1000/- multiplied by 22 and multiplier of 22 and 15% rate of interest has been granted, which is bad in eye of law.
The compensation will have be to be re-evaluated as even in the year of 1993, the multiplier of 22 could not have been granted and the rate of interest could not have been 15%. The amount under the head of loss of future income has not been considered by the Tribunal.
The multiplier applicable would be 13. The income would be Rs.1000/- + Rs.400/-, which is equal to Rs.1400/- divided by 2 as he was unmarried. The datum figure would be Rs.700/- per month x 12 x 13 + Rs.30,000/- = Rs.1,39,200/- + Rs.7,000/- for medical expenses till he died.
The appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
Insurance Company to recalculate the amount on 9% rate of interest and recover the same from the fixed deposit which may be lying with the Court.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 LN Tripathi