Jyotindra Kumar, Son of Sri Bikramaditya Singh, Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. v. Asha Devi, Wife of Late Raj Kumar Singh

this appeal is being finally disposed of at this stage itself. None turned up on behalf of rest of the respondents, i.e., respondent nos. 1 – 6, the claimants and respondent no. 8, the driver of the vehicle.

3. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and award dated 08th June, 2010 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge – Cum – Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Patna High Court MA No.692 of 2010 (16) dt.08-02-2013 2 Claim Case No. 38 of 2006 awarding a sum of Rs. 3,22,000/- with the interest @ 8% from the date of filing of the application till actual payment as compensation for death of the deceased, namely, Raj Kumar Singh, working as a Khalasi in a ill-fated bus.

4. The Claim Tribunal has directed the owner of the bus to make payment of the amount on the ground of lack of route permit, though, all other documents including the permit to ply was available.

5. Since the relevant facts are admitted except as regard to quantum of award that too goes in favour of the non- appearing claimants; hence, without going into further details, I am proceeding straightway in the controversy

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that under the Motor Vehicles Act, lack of route permit cannot be a ground for shifting the liability to compensate upon the owner of the vehicle validly insured and even if there is any such liability, the Insurance Company was duty bound to first make the payment against the award to the claimants with a right to recovery wherein all such controversy between the owner and the insurer may be decided. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of Apex Court in the case of “NARCINVA V. KAMAT AND ANOTHER Versus ALFREDO ANTONIO DOE MARTINS AND OTHERS (1985) 2 SCC 574” as well as in the case of “NATIONAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD. Versus CHALLA BHARATHAMMA AND OTHERS (2004) 8 SCC 517”. The learned counsel for respondent no. 7 has virtually nothing to rebut except claiming right to recovery. Patna High Court MA No.692 of 2010 (16) dt.08-02-2013 3

7. It is also brought in the notice that the deceased was aged about 50 years and number of dependency is 6, the Claim Tribunal appears committed an error in deducting 1/3rd of his income as personal expenditure, whereas, in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of “SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS Versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER (2009) 6 SCC 121”, it should have been 1/4th. At the same time, it is also pointed out that by application of principle of minimum wages, the deceased’s income, in absence of any other evidence, comes to the tune of Rs. 36,000/- per annum and deducting 1/4th as personal expenditure, it comes to Rs. 27,000/- and using multiplier of 13 (rightly used by the court below), it comes to Rs. 3,51,000/- as against. The Claim Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 3,22,000/- and even the claimants were not paid a single penny by way of interim compensation.

8. Apart from the above, it is also noticed that the owner-appellant in spite of appearance did not filed any written statement nor assisted the Claim Tribunal in any way to arrive at a definite conclusion at the earliest and ensure the payments to the poor claimants at appropriate moment and only when the award is passed against the owner, he has preferred this appeal and again for three more years the claimants are deprived of the usufruct. For such lapses the owner is liable to compensate the claimants in addition to what is awarded to them under the provisions of the Act.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant is in agreement to get the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- transferred to the court below Patna High Court MA No.692 of 2010 (16) dt.08-02-2013 4 to be released in favour of the claimants by way of additional benefit. Further, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall also be paid by the appellant to the claimants bringing the additional benefit to the tune of (25,000 + 5,000) Rs. 30,000/-.

10. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal, with the modification of enhancement of claim worth Rs. 29,000/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Thousand) besides additional Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) to be strictly paid by the owner as stated above in favour of the claimants, is allowed and the Insurance Company, respondent no. 7 is directed to make payment within a period of six weeks with the interest already awarded by the Claim Tribunal from the date of filing of the application till actual payment with a right to recovery from the owner, if at all, the Insurance Company after proper scrutiny is convinced may initiate appropriate proceeding, wherein, such issues may be decided in accordance with the law between the owner and the insurer of the bus. Praveen-II/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J)