1. This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant Insurance Company against the award amount of Rs. 3,59,000/- with interest of 15 per cent per annum with simple interest of 15 per cent per annum as cost, where the appellant no. 1 Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable along with appellant nos. 2 and 3.
2. As per the record and panchnama of the place of accident in which the husband of opponent no. 1, Smt. Rekhaben Indukant Sampat herein died on the spot, when the Truck bearing No. GRR 3761 owned by appellant no. 2 and insured by appellant no. 3 herein and driven by appellant no. 2 over ran the Luna-Moped driven by the deceased Indrakant Manikant Sampat, the husband of Rekhabhen, opponent no. 1. The claimant namely, opponent no.
1, Smt. Rekhaben Indukant Sampat, widow of deceased and to minor sons opponent nos 2 and 3 preferred the claim for the amount of Rs. 3,59,000/- from the date of filing the claim petition.
3. The Insurance Company opposed the claim as above mainly on the ground that neither opponent no. 1, Dharmesh Indukant Sampat nor Opponent no. 2, Nilesh Indukant Sampat, the widow and sons of the deceased respectively had seen the accident and the above fact is also evident from their deposition. It is further submitted that in absence of any specific evidence and vagueness in panchnama about description of accident in question liability upon Insurance Company along with owner of the Truck is contrary to law. Even the relevant material with regard to the income of the deceased was not brought on the record. Besides wife of the deceased was also having agency of the Insurance Company and to that extent the claimant widow and minor were not dependency upon the deceased fully. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the above stand of Insurance Company before the Tribunal while arguing this appeal and contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding amount of compensation under various heads and even simple rate of interest of 15 per cent on the amount awarded was also on higher side. It is, therefore, submitted that the award of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned Advocate for the opponent would submit that in absence of any error of law or of fact by the Tribunal in awarding the amount of compensation which is just and fair, this Court would not like to interfere with the award based on correct and proper appreciation of material on record. It is further submitted that there is no dispute about the offending Truck insured the Appellant no. 1, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the driver of the Truck was negligent and the above fact was considered by the Tribunal on the basis of panchnama of the scene of the accident and other relevant material. So far as the income of the deceased, who had partnership in the Agency of sale and distribution of Luna-Moped and other auto mobile parts, it was established before the Tribunal and considering over all aspects the Tribunal believed the income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd amount on personal expenses and applied multiplier of 14 as the deceased was aged about 47 years. The amount awarded is just and reasonable and further in consonance with the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sarla Verma reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the ground urged in the memo of appeal and those canvassed in the context of subject matter, on the date of accident arising out of the use of the offending Truck No. GRR 3761 insured with appellant no. 1 being driven by appellant no. 2 and owned by appellant no. 3 stand proved. Further the panchnama of scene of accident reveals the nature in which the accident had taken place where the Moped driven by the deceased was over ran by the Truck driven rashly and negligently. The documentary evidence was produced about the income of the deceased and the certificate reveals that he was the sole earning member of the family and had income from the distribution of Agency Luna Moped and the partners of the said agency had certified the income of the deceased. Therefore, after applying multiplier of 14 and deducting 1/3rd of the expenses of the deceased towards his personal expenses, the amount of loss of income was considered to the tune of Rs. 3,36,000/- as the age of the deceased was 47 years on the date of accident besides considering the nature of an Agency of distribution of Luna-Moped and for future prospectus awarded of Rs. 23,000/- can not be said to be in any manner unreasonable and in the year 1996-97 the Tribunal passed the award at the rate of interest of 15% per annum is not higher side in a case like this and not to be treated as precedence in future.
6. In absence of any error of law or fact in the award impugned, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE,J] FH.
Top