BALDEV RAJ Vs. SUBEY SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I shall dispose of the above two appeals arising out of an award dated 6th October, 1995 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Appeal No. 31 of 1996 has been filed by claimants seeking enhancement in the compensation and Appeal No. 108 of 1996 has been filed by the owner of offending vehicle assailing the award on the ground that there was no negligence of the driver and that the Tribunal wrongly held that the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000/ -. Both these appeals have been contested by the insurance company, who supported the order of the Trial Court on the issue of its liability being limited to Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding these two appeals are that on 7th June, 1985 Devinder Kumar, police Constable, aged 22 years was hit by Truck No. DEG 3386, while he was crossing Bawana Road at about 6.50 p.m. He got fatal injuries. He remained admitted in hospital from 7th June, 1985 to 10th June, 1985 when he breathed his last. During trial to prove that the accident had taken place due to negligence of Truck driver, the claimants examined two witnesses PW -1 and PW -2, who described the accident and testified that truck No. DEG 3386 was being driven by truck driver in a rash and negligent manner. After the accident, the deceased was dragged by the truck to some distance. Statement of PW -1 was recorded on the spot by police. The respondents i.e. truck driver and owner in the Written Statement took a plea that accident took place because the deceased was in a hurry to cross the road and he came running on the road and struck against the truck, but no evidence was led to prove this. No suggestion was given to PW -1 during cross examination that the deceased was running on the road at the time of crossing it. However, PW -2, who was given this suggestion, denied the same. The Trial Court, after appreciating entire evidence came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent diving of the truck by its driver.

(3.) THE counsel for the claimants pleaded that the Tribunal should have deducted only 1/4th of the amount towards personal expenses as the persons dependent on deceased were four in this case. This plea must be rejected since dependents in this case were wife, one minor son and mother. There is no evidence that father was dependent on the deceased. I, therefore, consider that 1/3rd of the income was rightly taken by the Tribunal towards personal expenses of the deceased. Since the Tribunal had taken into consideration future benefits and applied a multiplier of 20, I consider that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and fair. I find no force in this appeal made by the claimants regarding the enhancement of compensation.