ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. KANTA DEVI & ORS.

1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the award dated 17.12.2012, whereby ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.6,01,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

2. Present appal has been filed mainly on the ground that there were two dependents, i.e., parents, however, ld. Tribunal has deducted 1 /3 rd instead of ½ towards personal expenses.

3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that sister cannot be considered as dependents, therefore, there were only 2014:DHC:259 two dependents and ld. Tribunal ought to have deducted ½ of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

4. The second ground urged in the appeal is that the vehicle was plying without a valid permit and in that eventuality, appellant is not liable to pay any compensation amount as directed by the ld. Tribunal.

5. So far as the issue of deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, it is established from the record that deceased died at the age of 26 years, left behind old parents and unmarried dependent sister. The appellant / Insurance Company has not led any evidence contrary to that. Moreover, not made any efforts to bring any witness on record to prove the same during the pendency of the appeal.

6. Keeping the three dependents into view, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased towards personal expenses.

7. Admittedly, recovery rights have not been granted.

8. As the issue of valid permit is concerned, the appellant / insurance company has not taken any steps to serve respondent nos. 4 & 5, i.e., driver and owner, respectively, of the offending vehicle.

9. Admitted fact is that during the pendency of the appeal respondent no. 4 was expired and no steps have been taken to implead his legal heirs.

10. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since they are not disputing the driving licence, therefore, respondent no. 4 is not a necessary party to adjudicate the instant appeal.

11. In view of the statement of the counsel for the appellant / insurance company, appeal against respondent no. 4 is abated.

12. As far as service upon respondent no. 5 is concerned, the appellant has not taken any steps to serve the aforesaid respondent despite repeated opportunities.

13. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they do not have the address of respondent no. 5, therefore, they are not able to serve the said respondent.

14. It is on record that number of opportunities have already been granted but the appellant / insurance company has not taken any steps to serve respondent no. 5.

15. In view of above, instant appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.