IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.393 of 2007 DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. …………… Appellant. Versus INDU SINGH & ORS …………… Respondents. For the appellant: Sri Ashok Priyadarshi,Advocate. For the claimant : Sri Vijay Shankar Srivastava. For the respondent No.6: Sri Sourendra Pandey,Advocates. ORDER 8 29.6.2010 This Misc.appeal has been filed by the O.P.No.3, the appellant, the Divitional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. against the Judgment dated 7.4.2007 and the Award dated 21.4.2007 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, in M.V. Claim Case No.94/03. 2. The claimants respondents filed the aforesaid claim case alleging that on 11.3.2002 at 8.30 P.M. the deceased Sushil Singh was traveling in a car bearing Registration No.B.R. 31A- 8989. He had taken the said car from his close friend Dhirendra Kumar Shahi, O.P.No.1 and was coming from Village- Madhuban. The said car was driven by Sunil Singh, the driver. When the car reached near Kanti Chowk a truck bearing Registration No.UP 78/N-1595 which was being driven rashly and negligently dashed the car as a result of which the driver and Sushil Singh were seriously injured. The Driver Sunil Singh died on the spot. Sushil Singh died in S.K.M.C.H. and the other persons who was sitting in the car Jai Chatterji received grievous injury. It is alleged that the 2 accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. F.I.R. was lodged and Kanti P.S. Case No.32/02 was registered. 3. The further case is that the deceased Sushil Singh was aged about 34 years and was a Senior Medical Representative. He was drawing salary of Rs.19946/- per month. The claimants are father, mother and brother as well as his minor daughter. 4. The owner O.P.No.1 filed written statement stating that the driver Sunil Kumar Singh had valid driving license. The car was insured and that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. The driving license and certificate of insurance were filed. He has also stated that his friend Sushil Singh was Medical Representative and was drawing Rs.5515/- per month. 5. The National Insurance Company appellant had also filed a contesting written statement alleging that the owner of the truck had given no information about accident. The Insurance Company admitted the fact that the truck was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. The owner of the car violated the terms of the Insurance Policy by giving the car to sushil Singh and, therefore, the owner is liable to pay the compensation. It is further alleged that the claim is exorbitant . 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed issue and by the impugned Judgment and Award directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation of 3 Rs.15.22039/- excluding the interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The total compensation awarded was Rs.15,22,039 + 50,000 = Rs.15,72,039/-. 7. It appears that in the said accident the driver Sunil Singh also died and his heirs also filed claim case being Claim Case No.91/02. The said claim case was also decided by this impugned Judgment and Award. The Insurance Company paid the total compensation awarded in that Claim Case No.91/02 to the claimants of that case. 8. The learned counsel Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, raised only two points at the time of hearing of this appeal; firstly that it is a case of composite negligence. The learned counsel further submitted that since the deceased Sushil Singh had borrowed the car from his close friend, O.P.no.1 Dhirendra Kumar Sahi, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and, therefore, he cannot be considered as 3rd party regarding the car is concerned. Therefore, he is not entitled for the compensation. Secondly the learned Tribunal has wrongly calculated the compensation amount which is exorbitant. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants respondents as well as the owner respondent submitted that it is the specific case of the respondents that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck and the learned court below has found the same. So far the calculation regarding the compensation is concerned there is no mistake. 10. On the basis of the submission now let us 4 examine the impugned Judgment and Award. 11. It appears that there is specific case in the claim application as well as in the written statement of the owner, O.P.No.1, namely, Dhirendra Kumar Sahi that the accident took place because of the negligent driving of the truck being Registration No.UP 78/N – 1595. It may be mentioned here that the claimants adduced oral evidence in support of the fact that because of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver the accident took place. The owner also examined himself as O.W.1. No contrary evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence oral as well as documentary came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. I, therefore, find no force on the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is admitted fact that the truck in question was insured with the appellant. 12. So far the submission regarding wrong calculation is concerned also, I find no force because although claim by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- and odd per month but on the basis of the Income Tax return, Ext.6, the learned court below came to the conclusion that the oral income of the deceased was Rs.1,38,103/- only. In my opinion, the learned court below has rightly relied upon the said document. Out of that on 1/3rd deduction the yearly income comes to Rs.92,067/-. Since the deceased was found to be aged about 33 years, the learned court 5 below has rightly applied the multiplier of 17 and came to the conclusion that the compensation of Rs.15,65,009/- is the just compensation. After deducting Rs.50,000/- which was paid by way of interim compensation, the learned Tribunal directed the appellant to pay Rs.15,15,039/- along with Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses and Rs.5000/- as consortium. I find no illegality in the calculation of the compensation and, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 13. In view of the above finding I find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, this Misc. Appeal is dismissed. 14. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant is directed to be remitted to the court below so that it may be handed over to the claimants which shall be adjusted towards the total compensation. ` AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )