ANITA AGGARWAL Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding to the appellants compensation in the sum of ` 4,53,000/- payable by respondents No.3 and 6 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till payment.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the appeal are that on 25.05.1999, one Shiv Kumar Aggarwal was travelling by TATA Sumo from Delhi towards Khatu Shamji. THE said TATA Sumo was hit by a jeep bearing No.RJ-14-C-4586 from the front side driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. At the same time, a mini bus bearing No.RJ-14-P-6534 also hit the TATA Sumo resulting in the death of several persons travelling in the vehicle, including the said Shiv Kumar Aggarwal. THE alleged offending jeep was insured with the respondent No.3, M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited while the offending mini bus was insured with the respondent No.6, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited. THE respondent No.2 was the owner of the jeep and the respondent No.5 was the owner of the offending mini bus, both of which hit the TATA Sumo one after the other.

(3.) MR. Navneet Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have brushed aside the statement made on oath by PW3 Anita Aggarwal, who categorically stated that her husband owned a truck bearing No. DL- 1GA-9523, and was engaged in transport business and used to transport building material, earning therefrom a sum of ` 10,000/- per month. After the death of her husband, she stated that the said truck had been transferred in her name, but as she could not manage the business, the driver of the truck, to whom her husband was paying a monthly salary of ` 4,000/-, left the job. MR. Goyal pointed out that the testimony of PW3 Anita Aggarwal had emerged unscathed after extensive cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent No.6 and there was, therefore, no reason for the Tribunal to have disbelieved the same. MR. Goyal also contended that the deceased was an educated person which was clear from the fact that PW3 Anita Aggarwal had stated in the witness-box that her husband had passed the Second year of graduation. Not even a suggestion was put to this witness that her husband had never been enrolled for the graduation course. MR. Goyal contended that in any case, merely because the deceased was not an income-tax payee was not sufficient justification for the Tribunal to equate his earnings with those of an unskilled workman.