United Indian Insurance Company ... vs 8 = Rs.4
2021 Latest Caselaw 4265 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 BEFORE

.

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 215 OF 2014 Between:-

UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS ASSTT. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIMBER HOUSE, SHIMLA.

.....APPELLANT (BY SH. ASHWANI K. SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SH. ISHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT. SUDARSHANA KUMARI WIFE OF SH. RAMESH CHAND

2. SH. RAMESH CHAND

SH. GORAKH RAM

3. MS. KAVITA DEVI

DAUGHTER OF SH. RAMESH CHAND

4. MS. ANITA KUMARI DAUGHTER OF SH. RAMESH CHAND

ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE GHARH,

P.O. BANKHANDI, TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTT. KANGRA (H.P.)

5. SMT. MEENA DEVI CHAUDHAR WIFE OF SH. HAMENDER KUMAR CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAHAR MAGRA, TEHSIL MAVLI DISTT. UDAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) (OWNER OF JCB NO. RJ-27E-2735)

6. SH. NARAYAN LAL DANGRI SON OF SH. VENI RAM JI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NANDWEL,

TEHSIL MAVTI, DISTT. UDAIPUR (RAJASTHAN) (DRIVER OF JCB No. RJ-27E-2735)

.....RESPONDENTS

.

(SH. SURENDER SAKLANI, ADVOCATE VICE

SH. RAKESH BHARTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4 SH. R.L. VERMA, ADVOCATE, VICE SH. P.P. CHAUHAN, FOR R-5 & R-6.)

Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________

This petition coming on for orders this day, the

Court passed the following:

r ORDER

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 215 OF 2014 The insurance company is in appeal against the

award dated 03.06.2013 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala. In

terms of the award, compensation amount of Rs.4,52,000/-

alongwith 7% interest from the date of filing of petition was

awarded in favour of the mother of the deceased.

2. While passing the award, learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to

rash and negligent driving of JCB No.RJ-27-E-2735 driven

by respondent No.6 on 19.11.2006. Sh. Manish Chaudhary

son of respondent No.1 died as a result of this accident on

19.11.2006. The income of the deceased was taken as

Rs.4,000/- per month. His age was determined as 20 years

.

at the time of accident. 50% of his income was deducted on

account of personal expenses. Keeping in view his age,

multiplier of 18 was applied in accordance with law laid

down in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121. The amount

of compensation was accordingly calculated as Rs.24,000 x

18 = Rs.4,32,000/-. In addition thereto, mother of the

deceased was also held entitled to sum of Rs. 20,000/- on

account of funeral expenses. In all a sum of Rs. 4,52,000/-

was awarded to respondent No.1 as compensation amount

on account of death of her son Sh. Manish Chaudhary.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance

Company has raised two contentions. First that respondent

No.6 was not having a valid driving licence to drive the

vehicle in question. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that

the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent

driving of JCB, which is a transport vehicle. As per

provisions of Section 14(2)(a) of the Act, licence to drive a

transport vehicle remains effective only for a period of three

years. Relevant portion of Section 14 is extracted

hereinafter:-

.

"14. Currency of licences to drive motor

vehicles. (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of

this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under

this Act shall,

(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport

vehicle, be effective for a period of three

years."

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the

instant case, respondent No.6 was having a driving licence

w.e.f. 15.04.1999 to 14.04.2019. Licence to drive a

transport vehicle cannot be issued for a continuous period

of twenty years. Since, driver's licence was issued for a

period of 20 years, therefore, it was not valid driving licence

in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.

Learned Senior Counsel next contended that

though deceased was aged around 20 years at the time of

his accident and accordingly multiplier of 18 has been

applied, however, multiplier had to be applied keeping in

view the age of claimant/respondent No.1, who was around

44 years of age at the time of her son's accident.

.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties

and with their assistance gone through the record of the

case.

4(i) The driving licence of respondent No.6 has

been proved in evidence as Ext.R-3. As per endorsement

made on it, respondent No.6's licence to drive other than

transport vehicle was valid from 15/04/1999 to 14/04/2019,

whereas, his Licence to drive transport vehicle was valid

from 28/07/2004 to 27/07/2007. It is evident from the record

that the licence to drive transport vehicle issued in favour of

respondent No.6 was valid for a period of three years only

i.e. 28/07/2004 to 27/07/2007. Admittedly, the accident had

occurred on 19.11.2006 on which date the licence was

valid.

4(ii) With regard to the second contention raised by

learned Senior Counsel, it is suffice to observe that the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) as well

as in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others case (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that

multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the age of the

deceased at the time of the accident and not that of the

.

claimant. Relevant para in this regard is extracted

hereinafter:-

"59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with para 42 of that judgment.

59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier."

Learned Senior Counsel lastly invited attention to

a pending application registered as CMP No.8698 of 2014. In

this application, moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, prayer has been made to produce & prove

additional evidence for proving that respondent No.6 did not

possess a valid driving licence. Learned Senior Counsel prayed

for allowing this application.

The prayer cannot be accepted in the facts of the

case. Appellant/Insurance Company was all along aware of the

controversy involved and the issues raised by it in the claim

case. A specific issue was framed by the learned Tribunal with

respect to the validity of the driving licence of respondent No.6.

No evidence was led by the appellant before the learned

Tribunal to prove its assertion that the driving licence Ext. R-3

was not valid. Findings in this regard were given by the learned

Tribunal against the appellant/Insurance Company. Appellant

.

was not under any misconception of fact or law. It was for the

appellant to have made efforts at the appropriate stage to lead

evidence in that regard. No plausible reason has forthcome in

the application for permitting the applicant/appellant to lead

additional evidence in the facts of the case at the appellate

stage. Application being devoid of merit is dismissed.

The two contentions raised on behalf of the

appellant/insurance company have been answered against

it. The appeal being devoid of merit is, therefore,

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

Cross Objection No.8/2014

Learned counsel for the cross-objectors

submits that he is under instructions not to press the cross-

objection. Hence the same is disposed of as not pressed.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

September 02, 2021 (rohit)