RUPESH KUMAR Vs. BALRAM SINGH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common award, Misc. Appeal Nos. 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413 & 415 of 2006 are being disposed of as the common facts & issues are involved in all these appeals and are arise out of same accident. Brief facts of the case are : The respondents were driver, owner and insurer of Truck bearing registration No. MP-17-C-2533 on the date of accident i.e. 16.02.05. On that day, about 22-27 persons were traveling in above Truck. The said Truck turned turtle as a result of which Preetam Sahu, Maneesha Bai, Nawal Singh Gond, Kunti Bai, Saraswati Bai, Jai Singh Baiga, Jamuni Bai and Kailash succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants in all the appeals are their legal representatives.

(2.) The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held : accident has occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of offending Truck bearing registration No. MP-17-C-2533; deceased were sitting in the Truck in breach of policy conditions; exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants; assessed and awarded Rs. 4,15,000/- in MAC No. 407/06 (claim case No. 8/05), Rs. 2,66,200/- in MAC No. 408/06 (claim case No. 9/05), Rs. 3,31,000/- in MAC No. 409/06 (claim case No. 10/05), Rs. 3,52,600/- in MAC No. 410/06 (claim case No. 11/05), Rs. 3,52,600/- in MAC No. 411/06 (claim case No. 12/05), Rs. 3,14,200/- in MAC No. 412/06 (claim case No. 13/05), Rs. 2,95,000/- in MAC No. 413/06 (claim case No. 14/05) and Rs. 2,56,600/-in MAC No. 415/06 (claim case No. 15/05) as compensation in favour of claimants against the owner and driver of offending Truck.

(3.) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased; in selecting low multiplier, and in awarding compensation which is shockingly on lower side. It was further contended by Shri Bhaduri that Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the respondent No. 3/OrientaI Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation, inasmuch as, respondent No. 3/insurance company by charging extra premium of Rs 75/-, assumed the risk of gratuitous passengers sitting in the Truck.