Vimla Devi . vs The National Insurance Company Limited ...

3. In order to appreciate the issues arising in the case,   it   is   necessary   to   set   out   the   relevant   facts hereinbelow.

5. One   Rajendra   Prasad   aged   around   25   years was travelling in the passenger Bus bearing No.RJ­ 07­P­2151 as its bona fide passenger on 03.06.2003 for going to a place called  "Chomu".  When the Bus reached   near   Police   Station,   Chomu,   a   Truck 2 bearing No. HR­55A­7729, which was going towards Jaipur   from   Chomu   came   on   a   high   speed   and dashed against Bus. The impact of dash against the Bus was so violent that Rajendra Prasad, who was sitting   inside   the   Bus,   sustained   grievous   injuries resulting in his  instant death. This led to filing of the FIR No. 214/2003 in Police Station, Chomu.

10. The   claimants   examined   three   witnesses   in support of their case. The Insurance Company did not   examine   any   witness.   By   award   dated 5 05.12.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ claim petition. It was held that the claimants failed to   prove   the   accident   including   involvement   of offending   Truck,   which   caused   death   of   Rajendra Prasad. It was held that though the claimants filed the documents but since those documents were not exhibited, the Insurance Company could not cross­ examine   the   claimants’   witnesses   on   the documents.   In   short,   the   Tribunal   held   that   the claimants   failed   to   prove   the   accident   for   want   of evidence   and   the   one   adduced   was   not   exhibited and hence was of no use. These were basically the two   findings   on   which   the   claim   petition   was dismissed.

14.     In   our   considered   opinion,   the   approach, reasoning   and   the  conclusion   of   the  Tribunal   and the High Court for dismissing the appellants’ claim petition/appeal   was   not   in   accordance   with   law inasmuch   as   both   did   not   deal   with   any   issue arising in the case. The High Court while dismissing 7 the   appeal   simply   affirmed   the   award   of   the Tribunal without assigning any reason.

25. Keeping   in   view   the   aforementioned   principle of   law   when   we   examine   the   facts   of   the   case   at hand,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the Claims   Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   were   not 12 justified in dismissing the appellants’ claim petition. In our view, the appellants’ claim petition ought to have   been   allowed   for   awarding   reasonable compensation to the appellants in accordance with law. This we say for the following reasons.

30. Fourth, so far as the driver and owner of the Truck were concerned, both remained ex parte since inception   and,   therefore,   neither   contested   the appellants’   claim   petition   nor   entered   into   the witness   box   to   rebut   the   allegations   of   the appellants   made   in   the   claim   petition   and   the evidence.   An adverse inference against both could be drawn.

32. Sixth,   on   the   other   hand,   the   appellants examined   three   witnesses   and   thereby   discharged their initial burden to prove the case.

35. This takes us to consider the next question as to   how   much   compensation   the   appellants   are entitled to claim for the death of their bread earner­ Rajendra Prasad.

37. Having   regard   to   all   the   facts   and circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to take   Rs.5000/­   to   be   his   monthly   income. 16 Deducting 1/3rd  towards personal expenses, we get around Rs.3300/­. The appellants are also entitled to claim loss of future prospect at the rate of 40%, which works out to Rs.1320/­ thus making a total income of Rs.4620/­.  Applying the multiplier of 18, we get Rs.4620x12 x18 = Rs.9,97,920/­.         .

38. To   the   aforementioned   amount,   we   add   and accordingly   award   Rs.15,000/­   for   funeral expenses,   Rs.15,000/­   for   loss   of   the   estate   and Rs.1,00,000/­   for   loss   of   spousal   and   parental consortium. In this way, the appellants (claimants) are held entitled to claim Rs.11,27,920/­ by way of compensation   from   the   respondents   jointly   and severally. The amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization.

39. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds   and   is   allowed.   Impugned   order   is   set 17 aside.   The   appellants’   claim   petition   is   allowed   in part   as   indicated   above   against   the   respondents jointly and severally.

40. Respondent   No.1­Insurance   Company   is directed   to   deposit   the   awarded   sum   within   3 months with the Claims Tribunal for being paid to the appellants after proper verification.

November 16, 2018  18