National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sita Devi And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1417 j&K

                                                           Sr. No. 8

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU


                                             MA No. 297/2009


National Insurance Co. Ltd.                              .... Appellant(s)

                                Through:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate.

                          V/s

Sita Devi and others                                   .....Respondent(s)

                                Through:- None.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE


                                 ORDER

01. The present appeal is directed to be filed against the order and

award dated 10.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Kathua in file No. 47/claim titled 'Sita Devi and others vs. Manohar Lal

and other' whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant-Insurance

Company to pay an amount ₹ 4, 71,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of filing of the petitioner till final payment is made

to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 (claimants).

02. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal

against the award on various grounds including that the driver of the

offending vehicle was having a fake driving license. Hence, no liability

can be placed on the appellant as respondent no.6 has given the vehicle to

a person who was not possessing a valid driving license at the time of

accident.

03. Another ground made is that the deduction with regard to the

personal expenses of the deceased has not been done properly when

admittedly the deceased was a bachelor.

04. Further ground of challenge is that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 cannot

maintain the claim petition in presence of their mother, i.e., respondent

no.1. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in passed the award in favour of the

respondents.

05. The Tribunal after considering the objections has framed the

following issue:

i) Whether on 21.12.2002 at National highway near Buchari Samba, respondent no.1 who was under the employment of res.2 was plying offending vehicle no. HR- 38-2597 in a rash and negligent manner in consequence whereof caused head on collision with track no. HR-37-B-

               0936 driven by petitioner who got killed?         OPP
               ii)    Whether the vehicle was insured with respondent
               no.3 at the time of accident?                     OPP

iii) If issue no. 1 and 2 are answered in affirmative, what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

iv) Whether respondent no.1 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners? OPR3

v) Whether respondent no.1 was plying vehicle without holding a valid driving license on the date of accident as such respondent no.3 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.1, the owner? OPR3

vi) Relief.

06. After fully considering the claim petition, the Tribunal on the basis

of the evidence, has allowed the claim petition and awarded ₹ 4, 71,000/-

(Rupees Four Lac Seventy One Thousand) under various heads as

follows:

            1. Loss of dependency             ₹ 4,68,000/-

            2. Funeral Expenses               ₹ 3,000/-

                                Total         ₹ 4, 71,000/-

07. The other side has resisted the appeal and defended the impugned

award in favour of the claimants.

08. Reliance has been placed on a judgment reported in 2009 ACJ

1298 titled 'Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation' in paragraph

no. 15 of which has been held as follows:

"15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of

younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third."

09. In view of the judgment referred herein above, I am of the opinion

that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and awarding the

amount in favour of the claimants. Therefore, there is no question to

interfere into the award impugned in the present appeal.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

11. The amount so deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company be

released in favour of the claimants after their proper verification and

identification.

(TASHI RABSTAN) JUDGE JAMMU 02.11.2021 Sunita