- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 18.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Fast Track No.1, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has granted a compensation of Rs.2,81,000/- to the claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3, while exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation, the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle, has sought the refuge of this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition under Sections 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant and respondent Nos.4 & 5 claiming compensation on account of death of Surendra Singh in the road accident. On 20.06.2007 when Surendra Singh was travelling as a passenger in a Tanker, bearing registration No.RJ-27-G-6171, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tanker, the tanker rolled over a divider and turned turtle. Resultantly, Surendra Singh sustained injuries. Ultimately, he died. THE appellant submitted its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. THE Insurance Company also filed its reply. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. THE claimants-respondents in support of his claim petition adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. On behalf of non-claimants two witnesses have been examined and some affidavit have also been filed. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the award as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Kumar Soni, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, according to the appellant, the vehicle owned was not involved in any accident. In fact, his vehicle has falsely been implicated in the claim petition. Secondly, according to the eye-witnesses, the deceased, Surendra Singh was working as a Khalasi on the truck. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in concluding that Surendra Singh was travelling as a passenger on the truck. Hence, it has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has mis-applied the multiplier of fifteen as the deceased was approximately fifteen years old. However, there is no evidence to prove his exact age. Lastly, although Surendra Singh was not working, still the learned Tribunal has taken his notional income to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, it has committed a grave illegality. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the interest rate is too high. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned award. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the appellant has not been able to substantiate his contention that his truck was not involved in the accident through any evidence. Per contra, the evidence of eye-witness, Harish (A.W.2) and of other eye-witnesses clearly reveal that according to them the deceased, along with others, was travelling in the truck which belonged to the appellant. These witnesses have not been demolished in the cross-examination. Since these witnesses are independent witnesses, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of their testimony. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable. While noticing the testimony of eye-witnesses, some of whom have claimed that Surendra Singh indeed working as a Khalasi, the learned Tribunal has considered other evidence on record which belie the testimony of these witnesses. The learned Tribunal has clearly noticed that even in the claim petition, it was not mentioned that Surendra Singh was travelling as a "Khalasi" in the truck. Moroever, his mother, Smt. Chanda (A.W.1), in her testimony does not tell the Court that her son was working as a "Khalasi". Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has noticed that according to eye-witnesses they had boarded the truck as passengers. Since the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle, since it was insured as a goods vehicle, obviously the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation for those passengers who were travelling in the truck. In order to buttress its reasoning, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s. Asha Rani & Ors. [2003 RAR 35 (SC)]. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is meritless.
(3.) AS far as the age of the deceased is concerned, according to the post-mortem report, the deceased is said to be fifteen years old. According to the second schedule attached to the M.V. Act, in case the age of the deceased was fifteen years, then a multiplier of fifteen has to be applied. Since the learned Tribunal has applied a multiplier of fifteen, it has rightly followed the second schedule. Hence, application of multiplier of fifteen cannot be faulted. Therefore, the contention is equally unacceptable. In the case of Laxmi Devi & ors. V/s. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [AIR 2008 SC 1858] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case a person is not working then the notional income shall be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, the assessment of income done by the learned Tribunal on the basis of Laxmi Devi's case (supra) cannot be faulted. Moreover, interest rate which was granted was prevalent at the relevant time. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in granting the said interest to the claimants. ;