- (1.) ALL these appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company as well as the claimants -respondents under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the impugned judgments and orders dated 21.02.2009; and 31.01.2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow, in Claim Petition Nos. 85 of 2006; 86 of 2006 and 221 of 2006. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.01.2006, unfortunate parent of the claimant, namely, Sri Rajeev Chandra Chaturvedi and Smt. Leena Chaturvedi were travelling from Delhi to Lucknow in their Scorpio Jeep No. UP -32 BF -2269. At about 7.30 in the morning, when the Jeep reached near Sitapur, from the opposite direction a Truck No. BR24G0215 was coming, whose driver was driving the Truck carelessly and negligently and hit the Jeep, which resulted death of Sri Rajeev Chandra Chaturvedi; Smt. Leena Chaturvedi and their driver Mr. Jyotin Awasthi on the spot Claimants have filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after examining the entire evidence has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 8,07,000/ -; Rs. 27,07,000/ -; and Rs. 2,26,000/ - pertaining to the husband; wife and driver respectively. The interest @ 7.5% was also awarded against the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has field the present appeals. Not being satisfied, the claimants have also filed the cross appeals. First Appeal From Order Nos. 777, 778, 664 and 665 of 2009
(2.) WITH this background, Sri Anurodh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant -New India Assurance Company Ltd. submits that the accident is not in dispute. It is also an undisputed fact that on the date of the accident, the truck was insured by the appellant -Insurance Company (New India Assurance Company Ltd.). On the date of the accident, the policy was alive. He also accepted that on the date of the accident, the driver was holding a valid driving license. The truck was holding a valid permit and fitness certificate. His only contention is that the accident was "head on collision", due to contributory negligence of both the drivers i.e. Truck and the Jeep. So, the liability will have to be fixed in the ratio of 50 -50 between two vehicles.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company also submits that the driver of the Jeep was driving rashly and negligently. The Jeep was insured with M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. against whom no liability has been fixed by the Tribunal. So, he submits that the liability will have to be divided between the two Insurance Companies. He also submits that no proof of the income of the deceased was submitted before the Tribunal and the compensation is unreasonable on higher side. For this purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases: - - "(a) Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, : 2006 (1) TAC 969 (SC) : [2006(4) ALL MR 92 (S.C.)]; (b) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow v. Smt. Rashida Khatoon and others, : 2005 (23) LCD 793; (c) Akhtar Hussain v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.;, 2009 (4) TAC 812 (Utta.) (d) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Indrasani Devi and others, : 2006 (1) TAC 261 (All); (e) United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sarita Rani Dhaka, : 1995 ACJ 799; (f) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. v. K.S. Bindu and others,, 2006 (1) TAC 1 (SC) : [2006(1) ALL MR 99 (S.C.)]; (g) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, : (2002) 6 SCC 2S1 : [2002(4) ALL MR 886 (S.C.)]; and (h) Shyamwati Sharma and others v. Karam Singh and others, Civil Appeal No. 5316 of 2010 : ( : 2010 ALL SCR 1858]." On the other hand, Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation is meager in each case. He submits that the multiplier has wrongly applied as 5 and 9 respectively. By looking the age of both the deceased, the multiplier of 13 and 11 respectively will have to be applied. Future prospect will have to be taken into consideration @ 30% per annum.;