- (1.) HEARD Sri R. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajendra Jaiswal learned counsel for the re spondents. This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judg ment and award dated 12-7-2000, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki in Claim Petition No. 253 of 1997 awarding a sum of Rs. 1, 52, 000/-, as compensation.
(2.) THE matrix of the case is that on 29-8-1997 at about 12'0 Clock Noon, the father Sri Shiv Balak was going along with her daughter deceased Shiv Kumari, aged about 15 years. As soon as they reached near Fatehganj, a Jeep registration No. U. P. - 41A-4332 was coming from Hydergarh side and hit the deceased Ms. Shiv Kumari, who died on the spot. In the post mortem report, the age of the child was deter mined as 12 years. THE driver ran away with the Jeep. Later on, police case was made out and the Jeep was impounded. THE driver Sri Prabhakar Singh was arrested who has ac cepted the said accident. After examining the documentary as well as oral evidence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the vehicle was registered with the appellant, National Insur ance Company and insurance policy was valid from 15-1-1997 to 24-1-1998. The accident occurred on 29-8-1997 when the vehicle was validly insured. The owner of the Jeep was Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra, respondent No. 2. It was also observed that the driver Sri Prabhakar Singh was having a valid driving license on the date of accident. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded compensation as per Second Sched ule of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for Rs. 1, 50, 000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded the interest @ 12% from the date of the filing of the petition. Not being satisfied, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the mate rial available on record.
(3.) BOTH the parties have agreed regarding the facts of the case as mentioned in the Tribunal's order. The only dispute in this ap peal is regarding the quantum of compensa tion. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act suffers ambiguities. The Courts and Tribunals cannot go by the ready reckoner, it can only be used as a guide. Se lection of multiplier cannot be solely depen dent on the age of the deceased as per the ra tio laid down in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. and Others v. Trilok Chandra and Others (1996) 4 SCC 362. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre one. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Kaushalya Devi v. Sri Karan Arora 2007 (3) TAG 16 : (AIR 2007 SC 1912); and New India Assurance Company v. Padam Singh 2007 (4) TAG 388 : (2008 (1) ALJ 7) where under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim was increased by treating the same as the social welfare legislation. Learned counsel further relied on the case of Jeewanlal Limited and Others v. Appellate Authority 1984 (4) SCC 356 : (AIR 1984 SC 1842) where it was ob served that: "The Court should adopt a beneficent rule of construction; and if a Section is capable of two constructions, that construction should be preferred which fulfills the policy of the Act, and is more beneficial to the person in whose interest the Act has been passed. When, however, the language is plain and unambigu ous, the Court must give effect to it whatever may be the consequence, for, in that case, the words, of the statute speak the intention of the legislature. When the language is explicit, its consequence are for the Legislature and not for the Courts to consider. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a danger ous one and is only admissible in construc tion where the meaning of the statute is ob scure and there are two methods of construc tion. In their anxiety to advance beneficent purpose of legislation, the Courts must not yield to the temptation of seeking ambiguity when there is none.;