Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Rano Devi & Ors.

Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tamanna Sharma and Ms. Sana Rana, Advocates. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral) The instant appeal has been filed by insurer-Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated

12.05.2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., Camp at Nalagarh (for short, “the Tribunal”), in Claim Petition No.11-NL/2 of 2015, whereby respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as, “claimants”) have been awarded compensation of Rs.25,69,400/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization.

The claimants had filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of Shri Ram Murti being wife and daughter, 2 respectively of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place near Kharuni Bus Stand, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. on 18.11.2014.

It was alleged that deceased Shri Ram Murti was a pedestrian, who was knocked by truck bearing number HP-12- 3321 being driven by respondent No.4 herein (hereinafter referred to as “driver”) in a rash and negligent manner. The truck was owned by respondent No.3 herein (hereinafter referred to as “owner”) and insured with the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as “insurer”).

The claim petition was resisted and contested by the owner, driver and insurer. Owner and driver, by way of their common defence, had denied the cause of accident to be rash and negligent driving of driver. The insurer had raised various objections to avoid its liability. It was alleged that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.

Learned Tribunal had framed the following issues

Issue No.1. Whether on the evening of 18.11.2014 around 8:30 p.m. at place near Kharuni Bus Stand, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. on public highway, respondent No.2 was driving truck bearing registration No. HP-12-3321 3 rashly and negligently which resulted into causing death of Ram Murti? OPP. Issue No.2 Whether the petitioners being legal heirs as well as dependents of deceased Ram Murti are entitled for compensation as prayed for. If so from whom? OPP. Issue No.3. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3. Issue No.4 Whether respondent No.2 was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. OPR Issue No.5 Relief.

Issues No.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas rest of the issues were answered in negative. The claim petition was accordingly allowed and the compensation as noticed above, was awarded in favour of the claimants.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant- insurer has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the multiplier has not been rightly applied by learned Tribunal. According to learned counsel, the deceased being a public servant had to retire at the age of 58 years. The accident had taken place when the deceased was 57 years old and had been 4 left with only one year of service. On this premise, it has been contended that learned Tribunal should have applied the split multiplier.

The contention so raised by learned counsel for the insurer-appellant deserves to be rejected for the reason that this Court has already taken a view, in similar fact situation in FAO No.423 of 2019 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla Devi and another, which is contrary to the proposition advanced on behalf of the insurer.

Learned counsel for the insurer has next pointed out that the compensation awarded to the claimants by learned Tribunal under the heads loss of consortium, love and affection to widow and unmarried daughter and funeral expenses do not comply with the mandate of constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680. The contention so raised needs to be upheld for as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants will be entitled to loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each and not as Rs.1,00,000/- in lump sum as awarded by learned Tribunal. Similarly, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants will not be entitled to any compensation under the head love and affection to widow and daughter as no such head has been contemplated in the aforesaid constitutional Bench judgment. The funeral 5 expenses have also to be restricted to Rs.15,000/-, however, in addition, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of estate. In this view of the matter, the claimants will be entitled to Rs.80,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- each under the head loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 13th October, 2025 (vt)