Allowed

Shankar Dutt Joshi and Another v. Tej Ram Sagar and Others

Uttarakhand HC13 Jul 2017AO/251/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the Single Judge modified the liability from the owners to the insurance company after accepting verified insurance papers. The compensation was recalculated based on notional income of Rs. 36,000 annually, resulting in a net award of Rs. 5,09,000 payable by the insurer with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Liability fastened on appellants removed; award modified to Rs. 5,09,000 with 6% interest payable by insurance company; case remitted to Tribunal.

Shankar Dutt Joshi and Another Vs Tej Ram Sagar and Others — Insurance | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal from Order No. 251/2016

¶3

Shankar Dutt Joshi & Another …. Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

Tej Ram Sagar & Others

¶6

.… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶8

Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3/insurance company.

¶9

None for the remaining respondents.

¶10

July 1 3 th , 2017

¶11

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

¶12

The claimants have been served sufficiently, but none turns up on their behalf. Hence, the Court has rendered hearing to learned Counsel of the appellants/joint owners of the offending tractor no. UA04D-4702 as well as learned Counsel of the respondent insurance company.

¶13

After hearing on the CLMA No. 10363/2016, the same is hereby allowed and the papers, which have been filed along with the affidavit of Shankar Dutt Joshi (coowner), are accepted on the record. It may be added here that such papers have been got verified by the respondent insurance company and the same have been found to be genuine.

¶14

Accident occurred on 21.11.2012 at 10 AM when the said tractor along with the cultivator, was being driven by Dev Singh, hit Mr. Rahul, a young man of above than 20 years, in between Haldwani and Lal Kuaon. He was immediately shifted from one hospital to another and further to higher centre and ultimately, on account of serious injuries, which he suffered in the accident, lost his life on 25.11.2012.

¶15

This way, the claimants (parents of a youth) lost their sole son. They presented a claim petition asking

¶16

¶17

compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/-, whereagainst the Tribunal has granted Rs. 6,71,000/-. Since the tractor owners could not produce the relevant papers of such tractor, viz. insurance cover, registration certificate and driving licence, therefore, the liability to satisfy the award was fastened on the appellants.

¶18

Now, the appellants have moved the CLMA No. 10363/2016 for taking those papers on the record, which has already been allowed and such papers have been accepted on the record, as indicated above. On the top of it, such papers have been got verified by the insurance company. These are all valid papers and the insurance policy covers the date of accident. Third party premium has been paid. So, I think it would be unjustified to fasten the liability upon the owners of the tractor. It should be the insurance company who is liable to pay the compensation. Learned Counsel of the insurer has agitated the quantum of the award on the ground that the income of the deceased was not a fixed salaried income. He was simply an unskilled labour employed in a tent house. So, the notional income would have been the proper way to evaluate the compensation and nothing should have been added by the Tribunal on the score of future prospects.

¶19

I do agree with this contention and evaluate the total compensation on the national income of Rs. 36,000/per annum. On deducting one-half towards the personal expenses, the base income for evaluating the compensation comes to Rs. 18,000/- and on applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation comes to Rs. 3,24,000/-. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head of loss of estate, Rs. 25,000/- towards the funeral expenses and Rs. 60,000/for the expenses on the treatment is not disturbed by this Court. So, the net amount comes to Rs. 5,09,000/-.

¶20

¶21

The compensation of Rs. 5,09,000/- shall be paid by the insurance company along with 6 per cent simple annual interest with effect from the date of presentation of the petition till the date of actual payment. Both the claimants shall be given fifty-fifty per cent each out of the entire compensation amount.

¶22

Appeal is allowed. Liability fastened on the appellants is done away with. Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above.

¶23

Registry shall forthwith remit the compulsory statutory amount along with the interest accrued thereon to the Tribunal concerned. Thereafter the entire amount deposited by the appellant as well as the interest it has earned shall be returned to the appellants.

¶24

Let the LCR be sent back.

¶25

Prabodh

¶26

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)

Shankar Dutt Joshi and Another v. Tej Ram Sagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Dutt Joshi and Another v. Tej Ram Sagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Shiv Kumari Bansal Vs Sandeep Kumar

Tola and Another Vs Smt Kirshani Devi and Another

Mohar Singh and Another Vs Smt Kirshani Devi and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Vimla Bhatt and Others

S.s. Rawat and Another Vs K.h.das

Smt Laxmi Devi and Others Vs Vipin Kumar Dandriyal and Others