Smt. Kanta Bhandari And Anrs. vs Sh. Karam Ellahi And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1095 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. FAO 16/1986 is directed against the judgment and order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Petition No.294/1978 whereby the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 20.8.1985 has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- together with interest @ 6% on acount of the death of Ms.Renu Bhandari, a 17 year old girl studying in B.A.Ist Year.

2. The facts of the case are that:

"It is stated that on 9.3.78 at about 3.15 p.m. the deceased Miss Renu Bhadari was going sitting on the pillion seat of two wheeler scooter driven by Shri Ashwani on Satyawanti Marg and at a slow speed when truck no. USL-9571 driven rashly, recklessly, and negligently by respondent no.1 Shri Karam Ellahi came from the opposite direction and knocked down the said two wheeler scooter. As a result of the impact the deceased and Shri Ashwani Kumar fell down Along with the scooter. In fact both the deceased were run over by the said truck and they died.

2. It is further stated that the deceased Renu Bhandari was the student of B.A. 1st Year, Laxmi Bai College and after completing her education she would have earned Rs.700/800 per month. She would have supported the petitioenrs and otherwise also she was helping her mother in the household work. Respondents 2 and 3 are owners, respondent no.1 is the driver of the said truck and respondent no.4 is the Insurance Company.

3. Joint Written Statement has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and have taken preliminary objections that petitioners are not the legal representatives of the deceased and that the petition has not been filed according to the provisions of law. On merits they have denied the accident with truck no.USL-9571 and have stated that they were not present at the spot. However, they have admitted that the truck in question is owned by respondents 2 and 3 and have further admitted that it was insured with respondent no.4, i.e., National Insurance Company. Respondent no.4,i.e. Insurance Company has filed its separate Written Statement and has taken preliminary objection that the petition has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of law, that the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and that it is not liable to pay any compensation as the registered owner Shri Jagdish Lal, respondent no.3 had sold the vehicle to respondent no.2 and there is no policy in favor of Respondent no.2. On merits they have denied the accident with the truck in question. Respondent no.3 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 3.10.1978.

4. Replications have been filed by the petitioners in which they have re-affirmed the facts stated in their petition.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the accident resulting into death of Miss Renu Bhandari was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.USL-9571 on the part of respondent no.1?

2. Whether the petition has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of law?

3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties as alleged in the written statement ?

4. Whether respondent no.4 is not liable for the reasons stated in the written statement ?

5. Whether petitioners are the L.Rs of the deceased ?

6. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom ?

7. Relief."

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a 17 year old girl riding pillion had met her death in the aforesaid accident and that the total claimed amount by the claimant was Rs.1 lakh. He submits that although much higher claim could have been made and a higher amount awarded, yet since the claimants have been most reasonable and under-valued the life and ability of their daughter Renu, there was no reason why the Tribunal ought not to have given at lease one lakh. There is no presumption attached that the girl is not an earning member of the family and cannot support herself and other members of the family and, therefore, to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- for a death is indeed very much on the lower side. Taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was 17 years of age and was studying for her graduation, there is every likelihood that she would obtain employment which would have certainly generated income of which claimants would have shared the benefit.

4. Having carefully analysed the judgment under challenge, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, a sum of Rs.One lakh should have been awarded and is a resonable sum, that was claimed by the appellants. The Supreme Court in Rikhi Ram and Anr. Vs. Sukhrania & Ors. 2003 ACJ 534 has held that the vehicle if transferred does not absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to the third party. Similar is the judgment in G.Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. 1999 ACJ 781. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court merely because the vehicle was transferred does not absolve the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the award.

5. In that view of the matter, I hold that the Insurance Company is liable to discharge the award. Consequently, FAO 16/1986 is allowed. The award is modified to the extent of an addition of Rs.75,000/- together with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation of the award.