DILBAGH RAJ CHOPRA Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dilbagh Rai Chopra has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing his suit for the recovery of Rs. 25,000.00 as compensation and damages.

(2.) Dilbagh Rai Chopra's family consisted of his wife, Vimla Rani aged 25 years, his daughter, Shashi Kiran, aged 7 years and his sons Sunil Kumar and Pravin Kumar aged 5 years and 1 years respectively. On 10th October, 1955, at about 11 A.M. Vimla Rani accompanied by her brother-in-law, Om Prakash Chopra, and her son Pravin Kumar alighted from a bus at Moti Nagar Bus stand, Delhi. As they were crossing the road, Krishan Lal, respondent, who was driving truck No. DLC-9039 struck Vimla Rani who fell down and was run over by the truck resulting in her death. Krishan Lal ran away from the place of accident leaving the truck behind, Om Prakash Chopra removed Vimla Rani to the Hospital and thereafter reported the matter to the police. A case under section 304-A. Indian Penal Code ., was registered and after completing the investigation, Krishan Lal was challaned under section 304-A, J.P.C.. and was, later, on convicted and sentenced. The truck in question was alleged to be owned by M/s. Parma Nand & Sens, respondent. No. 2, and was insured for third party risks with the Premier Life and General Insurance Co., Ltd., respondent No. 3. Dilbagh Rai Chopra filed a suit in forma-paupris against the respondents claiming damages in the sum of Rs. 25,000.00 for the loss caused by the rash and negligent act of Krishan Lal, respondent. This claim was made for the benefit of and on behalf of Dilbagh R.ai Chopra and the other dependants of Vimla Rani deceased under the Fatal Accidents Act (Act No. XIII of 1855). It was alleged that Vimla Rani at the time of her death was only 25 years of age in perfectly sound health and was earning about Rs. 100.00 a month by stitching clothes and doing embroidery work. Respondent No. 2 in their written statement denied that the truck in question belonged to them and also denied that Krishan Lal was their driver. It was alleged that the truck was the property of M/s Harnam Singh Bansi Lal of Delhi who were running the same on the permit of respondent No. 2 and that Krishan Lal was the driver of the said M/s Harnam Singh Bansi Lal. They also showed ignorance about the fact whether the truck was insured against third party risks with respondent No. 3 and alleged that, in any case, they did not get it insured. It was also denied that Krishan Lal, respondent, was driving the truck, at the relevant time, rashly or negligently or had caused the accident as alleged by the plaintiff. They also denied that Vimla Rani was doing any tailoring or embroidery work as alleged or was earning any amount by doing that work, and finally denied their liability. Respondent No. 3 in their written statement denied their liability and the allegations of the plaintiff and further alleged that the truck in question was insured with them by one Mohan Lal Oberoi of Moti Nagar, Delhi, who transferred the same to M/s Mehta Goods Carriers Limited on 9th August, 1955 without transferring the insurance in the latter's favour. It was further alleged that on 24th August, 1955, M/s Mehta Goods Carriers Limited transferred the truck to M/s Parma Nand & Sons, respondent No. 2, and the truck was being used without the insurance being transferred to M/s Parma Nand & Sons. It was further alleged that after the accident and in order to avoid their liability, respondent No. 2 by making false representation and concealing information about the accident, got a certificate of insurance in their name from the representative of respondent No. 3 in the evening of 10th October, 1955. They denied their liability by alleging that at the time of accident, the truck was not insured in the name of respondent No. 2.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte as he did not come forward to contest his liability.