1. Heard Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the claimants-appellants and Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, for the owner of the offending vehicle. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra represents Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited.
2. In First Appeal From Order No.2795 of 2011, appellant no.6 Smt. Sitraji Devi is dead but her heirs and legal representatives are already on record as appellants no.1 to 5.
3. In view of the above, delay, if any, in filing the substitution application, is condoned and the substitution is permitted by making an endorsement before the name of appellant no.6 Smt. Sitraji Devi that she is dead and that her estate is represented by appellants no.1 to 5.
4. Delay condonation application no.267192 of 2015 and substitution application no.267193 of 2015 stand allowed.
5. The above two appeals are directed against the common judgment, order and award dated 15.05.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, whereby, a sum of Rs.6,82,176/- has been awarded to the claimants with 6% simple interest per annum and the said amount has been directed to be paid by the insurance company to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle for the reason that the owner has failed to produce the permit of the vehicle.
6. One appeal is of the claimants-appellants for enhancement of compensation awarded.
7. The other appeal is by the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the permit was not required. The vehicle was validly insured. Thus, there was no breach of terms and conditions of the policy and the liability to indemnify the award rests upon the insurance company alone.
8. The deceased was aged 46 years and was working in Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Degree College as a Lab Assistant. He was drawing salary of Rs.9,402/- per month but the Tribunal held that his salary was of Rs.6,444/- per month only.
9. The argument is that the said salary has been determined on the basis of pay slip of the month of December, 2009, in which, the deceased had died. Since, in the said month, he had worked for only 18 days, the salary slip showed lesser amount of salary. The Tribunal ought to have considered the last complete salary slip of the deceased for the month of November, 2009 in determining his income.
10. There is no dispute that the accident took place on 19.12.2009 and the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and died on 27.12.2009. Therefore, he had worked for only 18 or 19 days in the month of December, 2009. The salary slip for the said month showed his basic salary to be Rs.7,885/-. However, the salary slip of previous month of November, 2009 demonstrates that he had drawn salary of Rs.9,402/- per month. The difference in salary is certainly due to lesser working days in the month of December, 2009.
11. In view of the above, the Tribunal manifestly erred in law in placing reliance upon the salary slip of the month of December, 2009 in determining the income of the deceased.
12. On the basis of the pay slip of the deceased for the month of November, 2009, we hold that he had last drawn salary at the rate of Rs.9,402/- per month.
13. The other submission of learned counsel for the claimants-appellants is that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the future prospects.
14. It is settled by a catena of decisions that in case of salaried or regular employees, some addition should always be made for future prospects. This principle has been incorporated in Rule 220-A of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 and it has been provided that in case, a person is aged between 45 to 50 years, 30% of his salary shall be added in his actual salary for future prospects for the purposes of determining the compensation.
15. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal committed an error of law in not making any addition in the salary of the deceased for future prospects. Thus, taking the salary of the deceased to be Rs.9,402/- per month, we allow 30% of it to be added to it for future prospects.
16. The other aspect of the matter is that six persons were dependent upon the deceased and therefore, according to the Rule 220-A of the Rules, one-fourth of the income was to be deducted towards personal expenses.
17. Thus, the compensation admissible to the claimants would be as follows:
|
Salary |
Rs.9,402/- p.m. X 12 = |
Rs.1,12,824/- p.a. | |
|
For future prospects |
Rs.1,12,824x30/100 =Rs.33,847/- |
Rs.1,12,824+Rs.33,847 |
Rs.1,46,671/- |
|
Towards personal expenses |
Rs.1,12,824x1/4= Rs.28,206/- |
Rs.1,46,671-Rs.28,206 |
Rs.1,18,465/- |
|
Multiplier |
As applied by the Tribunal |
Rs.1,18,465 x 13 = |
Rs.15,40,045/- |
|
Funeral expenses |
As awarded by the Tribunal |
+ Rs.2,000 = |
Rs.15,42,045/- |
|
For loss of love and affection |
As awarded by the Tribunal |
+ Rs.5,000 = |
Rs.15,47,045/- |
|
For medical expenses |
As awarded by the Tribunal |
+ Rs.5,000 = |
Rs.15,52,045/- |
|
Total compensation |
Rs.15,52,045. |
18. Now, we come to the appeal of the owner of the vehicle.
19. The contention of Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle, is that the offending vehicle was a Tata Magic, which is a light goods vehicle and no permit is required for its use for the transportation purposes.
20. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for the necessity of permits. Sub-section 3 of Section 66 of the Act lays down that the permit would be necessary inter alia in respect of any goods vehicle, for which, gross vehicle weight does not exceed 3,000 kilograms.
21. The certificate of policy of the offending vehicle on record clearly reveals that the vehicle was a goods carrying vehicle and its gross weight is 1550 kilograms.
22. The registration certificate of the vehicle on record also mentions that it is a light weight vehicle and that its laden weight is 1550 kilograms.
23. In view of the above, it stands established that the offending vehicle was a light motor transport vehicle and its gross weight was less than 3000 kilograms. Accordingly, it was exempt from the necessity of having a permit by virtue of Section 66 (3) (i) of the Act.
24. Apart from the above, no one has pleaded that the owner of the vehicle was not having any permit to use the vehicle. In the absence of the pleadings, it appears that no issue on the above aspect was formulated.
25. It is well settled in law that the Courts have to adjudicate only the issues, which arise before it and they are not supposed to go beyond the said issues. In the absence of pleadings and an issue on the above aspect of the matter, the Tribunal manifestly erred in law in holding that the vehicle was not having a permit on the mere argument advanced on behalf of the counsel for the insurance company.
26. Accordingly, we set aside the finding with regard to the necessity of the permit of the offending vehicle and hold that the owner of the vehicle is not liable for the payment of the compensation as the vehicle was insured and there was no breach of any condition of the insurance policy.
27. The judgment, order and award of the Tribunal dated 06.05.2011 stand modified and the amount of the compensation is enhanced from Rs.6,82,176/- to Rs.15,52,045/- and the liability to indemnify the said amount is shifted upon the insurance company, with whom, the offending vehicle was insured.
28. In view of the above, we allow both the appeals.
