JUDGMENT
J.V. Gupta, J.
1. This order will dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 207, 208, 266 and 267 of 1975, as all of them arise out of one order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jullundur, dated 6th May, 1975.
2. In an accident which took place on 12th December, 1970, at 8.30 a.m., two persons named Darshan Singh and Hassan Lal, who were riding on a motor-cycle, were crushed to death as a result thereof. Two separate claim petitions were filed by the heirs of the deceased persons. Claim Application No, 4 of 1971 was filed on behalf of Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, widow of Darshan Singh, deceased, and others, whereas claim application No. 3 of 1971 was filed on behalf of Pushpa Wati, widow of Hussan Lal, and others. In the claim application filed by Harbhajan Kaur and others, a sum of Rs. 50,000 has been awarded as compensation, whereas in the other claim application filed on behalf of Pushpa Wati and others, a sum of Rs. 48,000 has been awarded as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jullundur, vide order under appeal, Darshan Singh and Hussan Lal have died as a result of the accident with truck No. PUJ-4625 belonging to Manjit Singh, appellant, which was being driven at the relevant time by Narinder Singh, respondent. Both Darshan Singh and Hussan Lal, deceased, were coming on a motor-cycle from Phillaur and stopped their motor-cycle at Village Nagar on seeing one Avtar Singh. All of them were talking when truck No. PUJ-4625 driven by Narinder Singh came from the Phillaur side at a high speed and crushed both Darshan Singh and Hussan Lal in the said accident, due to rash and
negligent driving. Darshan Singh was about 28 years of age and was of robust health at the time of his death and he was an agriculturist. According to the claimants, his monthly income was said to be Rs. 1,000, He left behind his widow, Harbhajan Kaur, minor daughter, Lakhbinder Kaur, two minor sons named Surinder Pal Singh and Kulvinder Pal Singh, as well as his mother, Karam Kaur, and his father, Maiya Singh ; whereas Hussan Lal was about 45 years and left behind his widow, Pushpa Wati, Saroj Bala, daughter, Ravi Dutt, son, and Paramjit, minor son, and Prem Kumari, minor daughter, and also his mother, Parja Devi. He was employed as a driver in the Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana, and his monthly income was Rs. 500. These two claim petitions were resisted by the truck owner as well as on behalf of the Calcutta Insurance Company. It was pleaded by them that the accident was due to non-observance of traffic rules on the part of the deceased, Darshan Singh, who was driving the motor-cycle and moreover, was not holding a valid licence, and, therefore, the respondents were not liable to pay any damages. It was also pleaded that no accident as alleged in the application had taken place and in the alternative it was pleaded that the said accident was due to the negligence of the deceased who was driving the motor-cycle very rashly and negligently on the metalled road without observing traffic rules. However, on the pleadings of the parties, separate issues were framed in both the claim applications, but subsequently, the two were consolidated by the Tribunal’s order dated 4th November, 1972, and the evidence was ordered to be recorded in Claim Application No. 4 of 1971, filed on behalf of Harbhajan Kaur and others. An additional issue was also framed on 27th March, 1973, which is to the following effect:
” Whether the truck in question had been insured with M/s. Calcutta Insurance Company at the time of accident ? ”
3. On the question whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Narinder Singh, driver of the truck, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants in both the applications have been able to prove that Darshan Singh and Hussan Lal died as a result of the accident with truck No. PUJ-4625, which was being driven rashly and negligently. Though it was held that Darshan Singh was not holding any licence, at the same time it was held that at the time of the accident, the motor-cycle was standing on one side of the road, while both of them, i.e., Darshan Singh and the pillion rider, Hussan Lal, were talking to Avtar Singh. However the engine of the motor-cycle was in running condition at that time. Thus, Darshan Singh, deceased, was held to be in no way guilty of any contributory negligence. On the additional issue framed, it was held by the Tribunal that truck No. PUJ-4625 was insured with Calcutta Insurance Company at the time of the accident. As regards the
amount of compensation awarded in the claim application of Harbhajan Kaur and others, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the monthly income of Darshan Singh, deceased, would not be more than Rs. 300 and on that basis it was held that he was rendering financial help to his family to the extent of Rs. 200 per month. Since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 28 years, it was held that at least he would have lived 35 years more and in that way he would have rendered financial help to the extent of Rs. 84,000 to the members of his family during his lifetime. Since the amount was being paid in lump sum, a cut of one-third was imposed and thus a sum of Rs. 50,000 was awarded as compensation.
4. In the other claim application filed by Pushpa Wati and others it was held that the deceased, Hussan Lal, was drawing a salary of Rs. 400 at the time of his death and thus, under the circumstances, he would have rendered financial help to the extent of Rs. 300 per month to the other members of his family. It has been further held that he would have worked in the Punjab Roadways for 13 years more and after retirement from the Roadways, he could have worked as a driver for another 7 years and would have been able to earn for the family Rs. 25,200 after retirement. Adding to the said sum the amount he would have spent on the family out of the income from salary for 13 years and applying one-third cut for lump sum payment, a sum of Rs. 48,000 was awarded as compensation to Pushpa Wati and others.
5. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the owner of the truck contended that the accident took place due to the negligence of Darshan Singh deceased who was driving the motor-cycle rashly and negligently. However, the learned counsel was unable to support this contention from the evidence on the record. It has been observed by the Tribunal that:
” None of the respondents, have, however, led any evidence in rebuttal in support of their aforesaid plea, Manjit Singh, respondent No. 2, has appeared as RW 2. He also did not depose anything about the case pleaded by the respondents in their written statement. In fact no evidence in rebuttal was led on behalf of the respondents on this aspect of the case. The accident in my opinion had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Narinder Singh, respondent, alone.”
6. In order to arrive at this conclusion, the testimony of Avtar Singh and Gian Singh who were present at the time of the accident (as the accident had occurred in front of the house of Avtar Singh who was talking to both Darshan Singh and Hussan Lal, deceased, at the time of the accident) has been relied upon by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. There is no rebuttal to this evidence and immediately after the accident had
taken place at 8.30 a.m. the matter was reported to the police at 9’45 a.m. by Avtar Singh along with Sarpanch Jagmel Singh. A copy of the first information report has been placed on the record of this case. The averments made in the application are fully borne out from the facts narrated in the first information report which was lodged immediately after the occurrence. Under these circumstances, no meaningful objection could be raised against the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence on the part of the truck driver, and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is affirmed.
7. The learned counsel next contended that the amount of compensation awarded in both the claim applications is excessive and against the principles laid down by the Full Bench in Lachman Singh v. Gurmit Kaur [1979] PLR 1 [FB]. Though the quantum of monthly dependency found by the Tribunal has not been challenged in either case, but according to the learned counsel, the deceased, Hussan Lal, was 45 years of age at the time of the accident and the maximum multiplier could be 10 in his case and, thus, the total amount allowed should have been Rs. 36,000 and in the claim application filed on behalf of Harbhajan Kaur and others, the deceased, Uarshan Singh, being 28 years of age at the time of accident, the multiplier of 16 should have been applied, and the total amount awarded should have been Rs. 38,400.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the quantum of compensation, I am of the view that no interference is called for in these appeals. In Lachman Singh’s case [1979] PLR 1 (P & H) [FB], it has been observed that the suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependants, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors such as like early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependants due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospect of the remarriage of the widow, the coming up of age of the dependants and their developing their independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependants on account of the death of the person concerned. Taking into consideration all these factors, I do not find, as earlier observed, any ground to interfere in this appeal. Darshan Singh, deceased, has left behind one widow, one minor daughter and two minor sons, besides his aged parents. The annual dependency in his case has been found to be Rs. 2,400 and the total sum awarded is Rs. 50,000 which can be arrived at by a multiplier of 20. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this claim application, the amount of compensation awarded cannot be said to be so excessive in any way, as to call for any interference.
9. As regards the claim application filed by Pushpa Wati and others, the annual dependency of Hussan Lal, deceased, has been found to be Rs. 3,600. The deceased was of the age of 45 years at the time of accident and has left behind his widow, Pushpa Wati, two daughters (one minor) and two sons (one minor) and his aged mother, Parja Devi. In this case, the multiplier comes to about 13. Under these circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive in any way as to call for any interference.
10. On the additional issue framed by the Tribunal, Mr. L.M. Suri, learned counsel for the insurance company, vehemently contended that it has been wrongly held by the Tribunal that the truck was insured at the relevant time. He particularly referred to Exs. R-1 and R-2. According to the learned counsel, even if it be assumed that in Ex, R-1, the date has been altered, even then it could not be earlier than 18th December, 1970, as it was on that date when it was issued, and, therefore, according to him, it could not be from 8th December, 1970, so as to cover the accident which took place on 12th December, 1970. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that the truck No. PUJ-4625 was insured with the Calcutta Insurance Company at the time of the accident. In the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company, it was nowhere denied that the truck in question was not insured with the said insurance company. As a matter of fact, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove that the truck was not insured with it at the relevant time. It may be that to begin with, the burden is on the owner to prove that his vehicle was insured with the insurance company, but when evidence in the form of cover-note, Ex. R-1, has come on the record, it was the duty of the insurance company to prove by producing the copy of the insurance policy or other documentary evidence to show as to from which date the truck was insured with it. The insurance company has failed to produce the best in its possession, and, therefore, the presumption of evidence would be that if that evidence would have been produced, it would have gone against the insurance company. It is all the more so in the present case as it was never denied in the written statement that the truck was not insured with this insurance company. Apart from that, reading together Exs. R-1 and R-2 which are copies of the cover-notes, bearing Nos. 205292 and 205293, respectively, it is quite evident that certain interpolations have been made in both of them. Cover-note, Ex. R-1, is said to have been issued on 18th December, 1970, whereas cover-note, Ex. R-2, is said to have been issued on 26th October, 1970. Since Ex. R-2, bearing No. 205293 could not be issued prior to Ex. R-1 bearing No. 205292, the date seems to have been changed from 26th October, 1970, to 26th
December, 1970. This is apparent to the naked eye. From all this, it is quite apparent that the insurance company was not coming with clean hands and was not taking the court into confidence by producing the best evidence in its possession. The owner of the truck, Manjit Singh, has also stated that no insurance policy was issued to him by the insurance company. Under these circumstances, it could not be argued that the owner should have produced the insurance policy in order to prove the date of its commencement. The insurance company is supposed to have the copies of all the documents which are issued to the insured. Non-production of those documents go a long way against the insurance company.
11. Moreover, on the cover-note, Ex. R-1, it is written that “Certified that the cover-note is issued in accordance with the provisions of Chap. VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 “. Section 93(b) of the Act in Chap, VIII defines certificate of insurance, which reads thus:
” ‘ Certificate of insurance ‘ means a certificate issued by an authorised insurer in pursuance of Sub-section (4) of section 95 ; and includes a cover note complying with such requirements as may be prescribed,….. ”
12. This being so, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurance company that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 95, a policy shall be of no effect until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance, has no substance.
13. It is admitted that in case the insurance company is held to be liable for payment of compensation, then its liability is to the extent of Rs. 50,000. Therefore, it has been wrongly held by the Tribunal that the liability of the insurance company is to the extent of Rs. 20,000 only.
14. For the reasons recorded above, all these appeals fail and are dismissed with the modification that the liability of the insurance company would be to the extent of Rs. 50,000, i.e., Rs. 25,000, instead of Rs. 20,000, as held by the Tribunal in each case.