- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 29- 11- 2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/additional District Judge, Bareilly in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 575 of 1998 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 along with 9% interest in favour of the claimants respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case as set out in the claim petition are that on 17-9-1998 at about 9. 30 a. m. when the deceased Ashok Pal Singh was going on his cycle, a truck No. U. P. 25/7419, which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, hit the cycle of the deceased. In the said accident the deceased received fatal injuries. It was further stated that after hitting the cycle, the truck got disbalanced and dashed against another truck which was parked by the side, and thereafter it hit a transformer. The claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 who are the widow, three minor children and mother of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 from the owner of the truck (respondent No. 6) as well as the appellant Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased Ashok Pal Singh was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs. 3,500 per month. The owner of the truck did not contest the claim petition. The Insurance Company filed its written statement and contested the claim. The insurance of the truck in question was not denied by the appellant-Insurance Company, however, it was pleaded that the driver of the truck did not have a valid driving licence and hence there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and as such the Insurance Company was not liable for payment of compensation. The claimants produced the respondent No. 1, Smt. Kamla Devi, widow of the deceased as well as one Udaiveer Singh as witnesses to prove their case. The Insurance Company produced Amitabh Bhaj, an investigator appointed by the appellant Insurance Company and one Adesh Kumar, a clerk in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, as witnesses. In support of their case, the claimants filed the First Information Report, post- mortem report, site- plan, charge-sheet etc. as well as the salary certificate of the deceased. The appellant Insurance Company filed the policy of the Insurance, report of their investigator and one photo copy of the alleged driving licence of the driver of the truck as well as a report of the licensing authority, R. T. O. , Bareilly.
(3.) THE Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It also held that it cannot be said that the driver of the truck did not have the valid licence and thus that the liability for payment of compensation would be that of the Insurance Company. On the question of quantum of compensation the Tribunal held that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 2,000 per month as against the claimed amount of Rs. 3,500. After deducting one third amount towards expenses of the deceased on himself, the annual pecuniary loss of the claimants was held to be Rs. 16,000. Although the claimants had mentioned the age of the deceased to be 30 years, the Tribunal on the basis of the age indicated in the post-mortem report, held the age of the deceased to be 35 years and applied a multiplier of 15 years and awarded Rs. 2,40,000 as compensation for pecuniary loss to the claimants. Besides this, Rs. 2,000 was awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs. 3,000 towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000 to the claimant respondent No. 1, the widow of the deceased, towards loss of consortium. Thus, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,50,000 towards compensation payable to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 along with 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. We have heard Sri V. K. Birla, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company at some length. Sri Birla has challenged the award of the Tribunal mainly on two grounds, namely: (a) that the driver of the truck did not have a valid driving licence; and (b) that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive.;