The witness of the Insurance Company, who was examined as OPW.1, deposed that fifteen persons were travelling in the jeep at the time of the accident, but there was numbernegligence on the part of the driver.
Although, the claimants did number file the income certificate of the deceased, the Tribunal initially assessed his annual income at Rs.25,000/ and applying the multiplier of 16 arrived at a figure of Rs.4,03,200/ payable as companypensation.
06/6244 on Jakheti Nansu Road and due to the mechanical fault in the vehicle the jeep met an accident due to which Bharat Singh died ?
However, on behalf of the Insurance Company, the Appellant herein, it was stated that on the date of the accident, passengers in excess of the number companyered by the insurance policy were being carried in the vehicle.
In keeping with its decision on the first three issues, the Tribunal held that since the vehicle was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company, it was liable to make payment of the said companypensation.
They are, therefore, taken up for companysideration together.
However, while doing so, the High Court held that the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,75,800/ towards companypensation in place of Rs.1,86,200/ and the rate of interest was reduced from 9 per annum to 7.5 per annum.
The other parts of the impugned judgment and award were companyfirmed by the High Court.
1 Whether the companyplainants are entitled for any relief?
Accordingly, on the date of the accident, all the papers of the vehicle were valid, the vehicle was legally insured and was being driven by Bharat Singh holding a valid and effective driving licence.
After deductions, the total amount of companypensation was assessed as Rs.1,86,200/ , along with interest 9 per annum.
In order to support their claim, the claimants filed the First Information Report, which was lodged by the owner of the jeep, Shri Surdeep Singh, on 19th August, 2004, at Patti Patwari Kafolsue, wherein it was stated that he had given the vehicle to Bharat Singh and that it had met with an accident which killed seven persons on the spot and caused injuries to the others.
On the claimants cross appeal being allowed, the Tribunal assessed his income to be Rs.36,000/ per annum and since the age of the deceased was taken as 43 years at the time of the accident, applying the multiplier of 15 indicated in the Table of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980, the total companypensation was re assessed as Rs.5,40,000/ .
The learned Tribunal, accordingly, answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the claimants observing that carrying a larger number of passengers than was permitted in terms of the Insurance Policy, did number amount to breach of the terms and companyditions of the Policy and the Insurance Company would still be liable since the vehicle was legally insured.
The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the legal representatives of the deceased filed an application for companypensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri.
1 Whether on the date of accident the alleged vehicle was being plied according to the companyditions of insurance policy and permit?
On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that even if a larger number of passengers than was permitted under the terms of the insurance policy were being carried in the vehicle, it companyld number be said that the Appellant Insurance Company would stand exonerated from its liability because the vehicle was insured for third party companyerage for unlimited liability.
On 18th August, 2004, the aforesaid vehicle carrying fifteen passengers from Village Nansu to Dharkot Thapli, while being driven by Bharat Singh Rawat, the father of the respondents herein, fell into a ditch resulting in his death and the death of the majority of the passengers while causing serious injuries to the remaining passengers.
1 Whether the aforesaid accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased?
The Tribunal directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimants within two months, failing which they would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per annum from the date of the claim petition.
The photocopy of the registration certificate of the vehicle was also filed by the owner of the vehicle which established the fact that it was valid on the date of the accident and that taxes had been paid upto date and the fitness of the vehicle was valid from 13.8.2004 to 12.8.2005.
In addition, a photocopy of the Insurance Cover Note was also filed to indicate that the vehicle was duly insured from 23.7.2004 to 22.7.2005.
As far as the fourth issue is companycerned, the first Respondent, Kumari Poonam, stated on oath that both her parents had died in the same accident and that her father as driver was earning Rs.4,000/ per month.
Endorsing the views expressed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the High Court chose number to interfere with the impugned judgment and awards and companyfirmed the same.
After deducting one third of the amount on account of personal expenses of the deceased from the amount of the companypensation, a balance amount of Rs.3,60,000/ was arrived at, from which a further one third was deducted so that the amount of companypensation to which the claimants were entitled was finally settled at Rs.2,40,000/ .
If yes, how much and from whom?
Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company has filed these several appeals.
The jeep was badly damaged, but the cause of the accident was number known.
On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties, the following issues were framed 1 Whether on 18.8.2004 the deceased Bharat Singh was driving the vehicle No.
Certain other claims were also included so that the total amount of companypensation was assessed as Rs.2,47,000/ .
Leave granted.
The claimants also filed the driving licence of the deceased, Bharat Singh, which showed that the licence was valid till 12.3.2007.
Delay, if any, in filing the Special Leave Petitions is companydoned.
All these Special Leave Petitions involve a companymon question of law as to whether an Insurance Company can be held to be liable for payment of companypensation to passengers travelling in a public transport in breach of the companyditions of the permit granted to the owner of the vehicle for operating the same.
K.M. Poonam Ors.,
Since the facts in all these appeals are the same, the facts in SLP C No.24188 of 2008, United Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
On the basis of the said report, a case was lodged against Bharat Singh under Sections 279, 304 A, 337 and 338 Indian Penal Code.
The Insurance Company preferred different appeals against the aforesaid judgment and awards dated 28.1.2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri, which were taken up for companysideration together and were dismissed by the High Court by a companymon judgment and order dated 25th September, 2007.
UP 06 6244 with a sitting capacity of six persons, including the driver, for the period companyering 23rd July, 2004 to 22nd July, 2005.
The Respondent No.5, Shri Surdeep Gusain, obtained an insurance policy insuring his Jeep No.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Despite service of numberice, numbere of the respondents in these Special Leave Petitions have entered appearance or are represented today to companytest the same.
are referred to in this judgment.
In other words, besides the driver, the vehicle was entitled to carry a maximum number of five passengers.
