JUDGMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Purohit, counsel for the appellant and Shri R.P. Nautiyal, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 2.
2. This is insurer’s appeal.
3. By the present appeal, filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and award dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli in M.A.C.P. No. 38 of 2003.
4. Briefly stated, a motor accident claim petition No. 38 of 2003 was made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of death of Gajendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident taken place on 30.4.2001. According to the claimants, on 30.4.2001 the deceased was going to Joshimath from Haridwar by vehicle No. UP 06-3233. The said vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver as a result of which the vehicle met with an accident and fell down into River Alaknanda resulting into the death of the deceased. It has been stated that the deceased was employed as Havildar in Central Reserve Police Force and was getting a sum of Rs. 5,943/- per month. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards compensation.
5. The owner and the driver of vehicle in question have filed a written statement stating therein that the driver of vehicle No. UP 06-3233 was a skilled and experienced driver and he was having a valid driving license. The driver has tried to escape from the accident but in vain. It has been submitted that the said vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. Neither the owner nor the driver is liable to indemnify the compensation.
6. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company. It has been submitted that the driver was not holding valid driving license, registration certificate, permit, insurance policy, etc. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1- D;k e`rd xtsUnz flag dh e`R;q fn0 30-4-2001 dks le; 1 cts fnu LFkku peksyh ds lehi okgu la[;k ;w0ih006& 3233 ds nq?kZVukxzLr gksus ds QyLo:i gqbZ \ ;fn gkW rks izHkko \
2- D;k ;kphx.k izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdjh gS \ ;fn gkW rks fdlls vkSj fdruh jkf’k \
3- D;k nq?kZVuk esa lfEefyr okgu dks chek ‘krksZ ds vuq:Ik ugh pyk;k tk jgk Fkk \ ;fn gkW rks izHkko \
4- ;kphx.k fdl vuqrks”k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \
5- D;k nq?kZVuk cl esa ;kf=d [kjkch vk tkus ds dkj.k gqbZ] ;fn gkW rks izHkko \
6- D;k izfrokn la[;k 1 jktsUnz flag rksiky] cl ekfyd us chek ikWfylh Ny ls izkIr dh] tSlk fd izfroknh la[;k 3 }kjk vius tckonkos ds iSjk la[;k 4 esa dFku fd;k x;k gS \ ;fn gkW rks izHkko \
8. While deciding as to whether the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting into the death of Gajendra Singh and as to whether the accident in question had taken place due to mechanical default in the bus, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration the statement of P.W. 1 Km. Renu and P.W. 2 Ravindra. They have deposed that on the date of accident, the bus in question was being driven rashly and negligently. Further, the claims tribunal has disbelieved the submission made on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the accident had taken place due to mechanical default in the bus as no evidence has been led by the defendant Nos. I and 2 to prove their submissions. Claims tribunal, therefore, has recorded the finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question. I do not find any infirmity with the findings recorded by the claims tribunal so far as the cause for accident is concerned.
9. While deciding issue as to whether the bus in question was not being driven in accordance with the insurance policy and as to whether the owner of bus had got the insurance cover note by playing fraud on the insurance company, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration paper No. 63 ga/2 to 63 ga/4 which shows that the papers for insurance of the vehicle in question were submitted to the Branch Office, Shrinagar from 28.4.2001 to 27.4.2002 on the date of accident i.e. 30.4.2001. Further, in the cross-examination Shri V.K. Garg has admitted that the insurance was not new and the same was renewed. It has also come out in the cross-examination of this witness that the money towards premium of insurance policy was lying with the insurance company and the insurance policy in question had never been revoked. The claims tribunal has further taken into consideration paper No. 34 ga i.e. copy of letter addressed to the insurance company by Rajendra Singh Topal and paper No. 36 ga i.e. certificate issued by the Garhwal Motor Owners’ Union Limited which show that on the said date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company. Paper No. 37 ga has been relied upon by the claims tribunal which shows that the vehicle in question was insured from 28.4.2001 to 27.4.2002. Further, the claims tribunal has taken into consideration paper No. 32 ga which reveals that the cheque was two days old and, therefore, the claims tribunal has recorded the finding that it cannot be said that the insurance was fake. Further, after taking into consideration the permit (valid from 28.4.1997 to 27.4.2002), driving license (valid from 21.8.2000 to 20.8.2003 and fitness certificate (valid from 20.4.2001 to 19.4.2002), the claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the vehicle in question was not being driven in contravention of the insurance policy and the papers relating to the vehicle in question were in order at the time of accident.
10. While deciding with regard to quantum of compensation the claims tribunal has taken into consideration paper No. 41 ga i.e. salary certificate which shows that the deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 5,943/-towards salary. Further, the claims tribunal has recorded the finding that the claimants will receive family pension and as such, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been assessed by the claims tribunal towards dependency. The annual dependency was worked out to the extent of Rs. 36,000/-per month. The claims tribunal has selected the multiplier of 13 after taking into consideration the age of the deceased about 47 years. By multiplying the annual dependency of Rs. 36,000/- with the multiplier of 13, the amount of compensation has been worked out to the extent of 4,68,000/-. In addition to this, the claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- has been awarded towards compensation in total.
11. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the cover note has been procured by playing fraud by Vimal Bahuguna, Development Officer to Branch Manager of the appellant insurance company on the very same day and the cover not was issued with mala fide intention ill respect of the vehicle in question. Since, it is admitted fact that the money towards insurance premium is lying with the insurance policy and the insurance cover note has not been revoked, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the claims tribunal while holding that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claim.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the claims tribunal. Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
13. Consequently, appeal is dismissed with costs.