Mac.App. No. 106/2007. Case: United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Sajitha Muhammed and Others. High Court of Delhi (India)

Case NumberMac.App. No. 106/2007
CounselUdit Kumar Chaturvedi, A. K. De, K. P. Menon
JudgesJ. R. Midha, J.
IssueCarriers & Transportation
Judgement DateMarch 19, 2010
CourtHigh Court of Delhi (India)

Judgment:

J. R. Midha, J.

  1. The appellants have challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.23,21,940/- has been awarded to claimants/respondents No.1 to 3.

  2. The accident dated 31st December, 2002, resulted in the death of K.P. Muhammed. The deceased was survived by his widow and two minor children who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

  3. The deceased was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident and was carrying on business of import and export of vegetables. The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.2,65,147/- per annum on the basis of his Income Tax Returns. The Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased and applied the multiplier of 13 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.22,97,940/-. Rs.5,000/- has been awarded towards the transportation of dead body, funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs.4,000/- towards embalming charges and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.23,21,940/- to claimants/respondents No. 1 to 3.

  4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged following two grounds at the time of hearing of this appeal:-

    (i) The driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence to drive LMV (transport vehicle) but was not authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to recovery rights against the owner of the offending vehicle.

    (ii) The rate of interest on the award amount be reduced from 9% to 7%.

  5. With respect to the first ground relating to the driving licence, it is noted that notice of this appeal was issued on the limited ground of quantum and, therefore, this ground cannot be agitated by the appellant at this stage.

    Notwithstanding the above objection, it is noted that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence to drive LMV and it was endorsed to drive transport vehicles. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver was not authorized to drive heavy vehicle carrying hazardous substances for which a special licence is required. The Claims Tribunal has discarded this plea of the appellant on the ground that by virtue of the endorsement on the licence, the driver was authorized to drive transport vehicle which was not carrying any hazardous substance. There is no infirmity in the finding of the Claims Tribunal and the same is upheld.

  6. The Claims Tribunal has awarded...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT