Delhi High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohan Singh Bisht & Ors. on 22 April, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd April, 2015
+ MAC.APP. 395/2012
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate with
Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate
versus
MOHAN SINGH BISHT & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns the judgment
dated 12.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the
Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.9,18,000/- was
awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 and 2 for the death of
Narendra Singh Bisht who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular
accident which occurred on 17.06.2010.
2. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the
accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of tanker
bearing no. UP-13F-1639. The Claims Tribunal declined to believe
the salary of the deceased to be Rs.15,000/- per month as claimed by
Respondents no.1 and 2 and proceeded to award the compensation on
the basis of minimum wages of a skilled person.
3. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:
(i) The accident was not caused solely on account of rash and
negligent driving of tanker bearing no. UP-13F-1639 driven by
Respondent no.3. The deceased himself also contributed to the
negligence; and
(ii) The compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant and
Respondents no.1 and 2 were not financially dependent upon
the deceased. Respondent no.1, deceased's father was getting
pension of Rs.10,000/- per month, whereas Respondent no.2,
deceased's unmarried sister was aged 34 years at the time of the
accident and cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased.
4. None appears on behalf of Respondents no.1 and 2.
NEGLIGENCE:
5. Respondents no.1 and 2 examined PW-2 Manoj Kumar Singh and
PW-3 Arvind Bisht who deposed about the manner of the accident.
They deposed that tanker bearing no. UP-13F-1639 was being driven
in a rash and negligent manner. A perusal of the site plan prepared in
the criminal case FIR no.89/2010 under Section 279/304-A IPC P.S.
Sadar also reveals that tanker bearing no. UP-13F-1639 had travelled
on the wrong side to strike against the deceased's motorcycle. Hence,
negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker bearing no. UP-13F-
1639 was sufficiently established.
COMPENSATION:
6. Mohan Singh Bisht (PW-1), the deceased's father testified that he and
his daughter, Petitioner no.2 were financially dependent upon the
deceased. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he was getting a
pension of Rs.10,000/- per month from the Army wherefrom he had
retired. At the same time, nothing was brought on record to contradict
the statement of PW-1 that the sister was financially dependent on the
deceased. Testimony of PW-1 in this regard remained unchallenged
and unrebutted. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal rightly concluded that
Petitioner no.2 was financially dependent upon her deceased brother.
7. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was claimed that at the
time of the accident, the deceased was working as a driver of a
delivery van belonging to Hash Networks and was getting a salary of
Rs.15,000/- per month. PW-1 Mohan Singh Bisht in his Affidavit
testified that the deceased was working with Hash Networks as a
driver-cum-delivery man. He also stated that before April, 2010, the
deceased was employed with one Subhash Chand of M/s Anjali Tours
& Travels. Mr. R.L.S. Rathore (PW-4) from M/s Hash Networks was
also examined by Respondents no.1 and 2 to prove the deceased's
employment with Hash Networks. A photocopy of the cheque for
Rs.13,870/- which was issued by the previous employer towards his
salary for previous dues was also produced on record. The Claims
Tribunal, however, declined to believe all this evidence on the ground
that the said cheque was dishonoured and that no Income Tax Return
was produced on record by the subsequent employer Hash Networks.
To say the least, the entire approach of the Claims Tribunal was
illegal. Not only the employer was produced and there was
documentary evidence in the shape of cheque (even if the same was
dishonoured), there was a driving licence placed on record by
Respondents no.1 and 2 to prove that deceased Narendra Singh Bisht
was a driver of commercial TSR and commercial light motor vehicle.
If the deceased was not a professional driver of goods vehicle, there
was hardly any need to obtain the said licence. Thus, I am inclined to
believe the version of the Respondents that the deceased was working
as a driver on a commercial vehicle and most likely with Hash
Networks and was getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month.
8. Since the deceased was a bachelor and his unmarried sister was
dependant on him and the father was not dependant, I am inclined to
deduct 2/3rd towards his personal and living expenses. The loss of
dependency therefore, comes to Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 1/3 x 12
x 13).
9. In addition, in view of the judgment in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh
& Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, Respondents no.1 and 2 are entitled to a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss to estate.
10. The overall compensation thus, comes to Rs.9,15,000/- against the
award of Rs.9,18,000/- granted by the Claims Tribunal.
11. In view of this, the award of Rs.9,18,000/- granted by the Claims
Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.
12. The appeal therefore, has to fail and is accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
14. The compensation payable to Respondents no.1 and 2(claimants) shall
be released/held in Fixed Deposit in terms of the orders passed by the
Claims Tribunal.
15. On filing compliance report within four weeks, the statutory amount,
if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance
Company.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 22, 2015
pst
