SARLA DIXIT Vs. BALWANT YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who were the original claimants in Claim Petition No. 9 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, have felt aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench Gwalior in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 174 of 1977, by which, according to the appellants, the High Court only marginally enhanced the compensation payable by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the appellants. They have obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India from this Court and that is how this appeal was placed for final hearing before us.

(2.) A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the outset. Appellant No. 1 is the widow of late Captain Rama Kant Dixit who died on 16th March 1975 in a road accident. Appellant No. 2 was the minor daughter of appellant No. 1 who by now has become major as she was aged 14 years in 1985 when Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was moved in this Court. It is the case of the appellants that late Capt. Rama Kant Dixit was hit by the offending truck owned by respondent No. 1 which was driven at the relevant time by respondent No. 2. The truck was insured against third party risk by respondent No. 3. That on the relevant date of the accident the deceased was aged 27 years and was serving as Captain in Indian Army. He was going on 16th March 1975 at about 11.00 a. m. from Chandra Prasth Colony side towards Mall Road, Morar, within the city of Gwalior. That at that time respondent No. 2 was driving the aforesaid truck and was coming from the side of Gola-Ka-Mandir and was proceeding towards a locality known as J. and K. The said road was a public road admeasuring 25 ft. in width and was running from west to east. The truck was proceeding from west to east going towards eastern side where locality J. and K. was situated. On the said road intersection No. 7. another public road, was proceeding from north to south and it was known as Indraprastha Road. The deceased at the relevant time was driving a scooter carrying a pillion rider, appellant's witness No. 7 one Ramji Sharma. It is the case of the appellants that while the scooter had entered the intersection and was proceeding southwards on the said road respondent No. 2 driving the truck from the western side came in high speed and dashed against the scooter resulting in instantaneous death of appellant No. 1 husband Capt. Rama Kant Dixit. On account of the said accident the appellants having lost the sole bread winner filed the aforesaid Claim Petition before the Gwalior Tribunal under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. In the said Claim Petition originally appellant No. 1's mother-in-law, that is, mother of deceased Rama Kant Dixit was also joined as one of the claimants but pending the proceedings, she expired and the appellants continued the Claim Petition also as her heirs with the result that thereafter remained as claimants only the present two appellants. The claimants put forward total claim of Rs. 6,12,524/- on various heads against the respondents.

(3.) The High Court, therefore, addressed itself on these two main issues and came to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 54,000/- and that nothing was required to be sliced down from the said amount as deceased Rama Kant was not guilty of any contributory negligence and the entire negligence rested on the shoulder of respondent No. 2 driver of the truck and consequently respondent No. 2 and the owner of the truck, respondent No. 1 were liable to meet the claim of compensation awarded to the appellants. The High Court ordered that Rupees 54,000/- shall carry simple interest @ 6% from the date of the Claim Petition, that is 10th July 1975 till 13th October, 1975 and then from 19th January 1976 until full realisation. The claimant's rest of the claim against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed. Appellants' appeal was also dismissed with costs against respondent No. 3, the insurance company. It was also ordered that the appellants shall receive onehalf costs of the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal and one-half costs of the appeal from respondents Nos. 1 and 2 while they had to pay the cost of insurance company, respondent No. 3, in proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had to bear their own costs throughout.