National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hasnu & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 2669 Del

27
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +   MAC.APP.No.37/2007

                                 Date of Decision: 16th July, 2009
%

      NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD             ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. S.L. Gupta and
                              Mr. Ram Ashray, Advs.
               versus

      HASNU & ORS                                ..... Respondents
                          Through : None.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may               Yes
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?              Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be                      Yes
        reported in the Digest?


                          JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned

Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- has been

awarded to the claimants.

2. The accident dated 14th May, 2004 resulted in the

death of Naim aged 18 years. The deceased was survived by

his father who filed the claim petition before the learned

Tribunal.

3. The deceased was travelling in a Tata 407 tempo

bearing No.HR-46-8313 along with stock of fish from village

Kohli towards Delhi. When the tempo reached near the

Canal at Village Sorkhi, Haryana, the back wheel of the said

tempo busted due to which the vehicle met with an accident

resulting in the death of deceased.

4. The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased

at Rs.15,000/- per annum according to the Second Schedule

of the Motor Vehicles Act and applied the multiplier of 15 to

compute the loss of dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-.

Rs.50,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and

affection and funeral expenses. The total compensation is

awarded Rs.2,75,000/-.

5. The appellant has challenged the impugned award

passed by the learned Tribunal on the short ground that the

deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle

and, therefore, the appellant is not liable.

6. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the

deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle with stock of

fish and, therefore, he was not a gratuitous passenger.

7. PW - 2 has specifically deposed in this regard. The

deceased was a fish seller. The appellant has not led any

evidence to prove that there was any breach of terms and

conditions of insurance policy on the part of the insured.

9. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned

Tribunal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

J.R. MIDHA, J JULY 16, 2009 mk