DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) v. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 805 of 2014
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In above terms, these miscellaneous appeals are disposed of
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 2(21), 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. In above terms, these miscellaneous appeals are disposed of.
Judgment
(BY SHRI VIKAS JYOTSHI - ADVOCATE) AND
BALWANT S/O SHAMRAO BALPANDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BELGAON NAKA SOUNSAR TAH. SOUNSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) OMPRAKASH S/O NARAYANDAS BAGANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WARD NO. 7 SOUNSAR TAHSIL SOUNSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ORIENTAL BRANCH OFFICE PARASIYA ROAD, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) .....APPELLANTS (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 805 of 2014 .....RESPONDENTS BETWEEN:- Signature Not Verified SAN THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LD. DEPUTY MANAGER (T.P. HUB) 1561 NAPIER TOWN DR. BARAT ROAD, RUSSEL CROSSING, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2 .....APPELLANT (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT) AND
VIR SINGH S/O PUNNULAL UIKE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEAR S , BORGAON TEH. CHORAI, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) SMT. SONA BAI W/O VIRSINGH UIKE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BORGAON TEHSIL CHORA,I DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) BALWANT S/O SHAMRAO BALPANDE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BELGAON NAKA SONSAR TEHSIL SONSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) OMPAKASH S/O NARAYANDAS BAGANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WARD NO. 7 SONSAR TEHSIL SONSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (M.P.) (SHRI VIKAS JYOTSHI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2) .....RESPONDENTS These appeals coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER Learned counsel for the claimants submits that he has paid deficit Court fee of Rs.3,000/- and in support of the said submission he has filed a copy of Online Court Fee Cyber Receipt, therefore, he prays that Court fee may be taken on record and necessary amendment be permitted to be carried out.
On due consideration, this prayer is allowed. Deficit Court fee is taken on record and claimants are permitted to make necessary amendment.
3. These miscellaneous appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are filed by the claimants and insurance company, respectively, being aggrieved of award dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara (M.P.) in claim case No.03/2013 (Vir Singh and another Vs. Balwant and others). Signature Not Verified SAN 3
4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.56,500/- in favour of the claimants, who lost their one and a half year old child Pravesh, who was hit by Tata truck bearing registration No.MP28-G-0502. It is submitted that it is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Insurance company has challenged the said award on the ground that the impugned award is not a speaking order and is perverse and based on incorrect interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accident took place on 07.02.2011. Driver Balwant was having a licence to driver Light Motor Vehicle-Non Transport(LMV-NT), which was effective from 20.08.1996 to
19.03.2013, issued by RTO, Nagpur and therefore, he was not competent to drive the offending vehicle.
A perusal of the record reveals that the truck which was seized bearing registration No.MP28-G-0502 was a Tata LPT 1109 Turbo truck. Fitness was available on the date of the accident vide Ex.D-2 and unladen weight of the truck is mentioned in Ex.D-1 as 4020 kgs. Thus, as per the definition of LMV given in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, on the basis of the unladen weight mentioned in Ex.D-1, the vehicle was a Light Motor Vehicle, therefore, merely absence of endorsement to drive a Transport vehicle, will not exonerate the insurance company, especially, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663. Thus, appeal filed by the insurance company on the ground of licence, is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Signature Not Verified SAN
As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, Delhi High Court in case of Jitendra Kumar and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, decided on 31st July, 2009 in MAC Appeal No.68 of 2009 4 has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- in case of death of a three year old child. Thus, following the same principles as has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court replying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, III (2006) ACC 261, a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- will be payable in place of Rs.56,000/-.
Thus, there will be addition of Rs.3,19,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Nineteen Thousand) to which claimants will be entitled to in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. This additional amount will also earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. Other terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact.
Operative part
In above terms, these miscellaneous appeals are disposed of.
Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified SAN SAN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In above terms, these miscellaneous appeals are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 2(21), 173(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.