RANCHI, India, Jan. 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 13:

1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and award of compensation passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 101 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, liability to pay compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act has been fixed on the Insurance Company.

2. Insurance Company is in appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded, whereas the claimants are before this Court for enhancement of the compensation amount.

3. The facts are not in dispute and does not need reiteration. The deceased Ajay Kunwar @ Ajay Kumar Rai died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor bearing No. BR10B-8254.

4. The owner of the tractor neither appeared before the Tribunal nor before this Court.

5. The liability is under challenge by the Insurance Company on the ground that the said tractor was a goods carriage vehicle and the Tribunal at para12 has noted that the deceased was permitted to travel by the driver of the tractor on the mudguard of it resulting in the fatal accidental death.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the permit was also required for a tractor and in support of his contention, a letter of the Deputy Transport Commissioner-cum-Secretary dated 21.08.2015 obtained under the RTI is obtained wherein it has been stated that where the tractor is being used for commercial purpose then a permit is required.

7. In the present case, there is no evidence as such that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose, therefore the plea that there was breach of policy of insurance on account of the fact that offending vehicle was plying without any valid permit is not sustainable.

8. Since the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger on the tractor, therefore, there was a breach in terms of the insurance policy. Consequently, the Insurance Company will be entitled to right to recover the amount paid to the claimants.

9. It is argued by learned counsel for the claimants that the award of compensation is not as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. No compensation has been awarded under the heading of future prospect, rate of interest is 6% and the meagre amount has been allowed under the non-conventional head.

10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, there is merit in the submission made on behalf of the claimants.

11. Under the circumstance, taking the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3000/-, as assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of oral evidence and the age of the deceased to be 33 years old, the applicable multiplier is 16 and 1/4th deduction on personal living expense as four claimants have been arrayed in the present case.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrGtfmgYPOfW6Mb8YHSO1GEGuNmxnCgN9CDSQUH9%2Fn511&caseno=MA/604/2018&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010322952018&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.