Court No. - 33
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 466 of 1991 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Sunita Singhal and others Counsel for Appellant :- A.B. Saran,K.Saran,Siddarth Jaiswal,V.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Pramod Kumar Jain
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddarth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Abu Bakht, learned Advocate for Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the judgment and order impugned. None appeared on behalf of respondent- owner.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., challenges the judgment and award dated 4.2.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IX Additional District and Judge, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 186 of 1989 awarding a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% as compensation in favour of the claimants.
3. Brief facts of the matter are that on 5.5.1989 at about 1.45 p.m. Anil Kumar Singhal was riding on his scooter along with his servant Surendra Kumar who was a pillion rider. The scooter was being driven on its correct side and at that truck which is involved in the accident came from its opposite side and dashed with the deceased. The Tribunal held that the driver of the truck was held negligent. It is this finding and the compensation awarded which is under challenge.
4. The Insurance Company has submitted that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of the scooter and not of truck. The maximum liability was of Rs.1,50,000/- however, nothing is shown on the record that no extra premium was taken. It is not even proved that such a plea was taken and proved before the Tribunal. Even before the Tribunal it was not demonstrated that the liability was for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In that view of the matter the said stand cannot sustain.
5. While going through the judgment and finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1, it is very clear that P.W. 2 was an eye- witness of the accident. The driver of the truck did not appear before the Tribunal. The charge-sheet was led against him. No indication of parking light was given by the driver of the truck. No care and caution was taken by the said driver was the deposition of P.W.2 whose testimony has remained unshaken despite suggestions from the counsel for the appellant.
6. As far as issue of interest is concerned, the rate of interest will have to be 9% and not 12% in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench in F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2017 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lavkush and another) decided on 21.3.2017 which has been followed by this Court time and again and which will enure for the benefit of the appellant.
7. As far as the cross objection and quantum is concerned, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,90,000/- bifurcating it to be the income of the deceased to be Rs.18,000/- deducting it by 1/3rd and granting multiplier of 15. No amount was paid for future loss of income. A very meagre amount was paid for consortium to the young widow and Rs.5000/- were granted for love and affection to the children. Amount of 40% of the income will have to be added which means Rs.8,000 x 15 = 90,000/-. Hence, claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- + Rs.20,000/- for non pecuniary damages.
8. In view of the above, this appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed. The cross objection is also partly allowed. The Insurance company shall recalculate the amount as per this judgment and order with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is deposited. The judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 DKS