PRASHANT DUTTA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accident dated 4 th June, 2006 resulted in the death of Om Prakash. The deceased was survived by his widow, mother and four children who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and was working as a conductor on the offending bus bearing No.DL-1P-5998. The Claims Tribunal took the minimum wages of Rs 3,271/- into consideration, deducted 1/4 th towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18, added Rs 60,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs 20,000/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation awarded is Rs 6,09,902/-. The Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and held the driver and owner liable to pay the award amount.

(2.) The appellants are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and have challenged the impugned award on the limited ground that the offending vehicle was validly insured and, therefore, respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the entire award amount to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the deceased, employed as a conductor, was validly covered under the insurance policy and, therefore, respondent No.1 alone is responsible to pay the insurance amount.

(3.) The widow of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that her husband was on duty on the vehicle as a conductor at the time of the accident. She reiterated the same in her cross-examination. The learned Trial Court has taken the deceased to be helper on the basis of the statement of respondent No.1 who appeared in the witness box as RW-1. However, respondent No.1 did not produce any document to show that the deceased was a helper. Respondent No.1 did not lead any evidence to rebut the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased was a conductor. The term conductor has been defined in Section 2(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act as a person engaged in collecting fares from passengers, regulating their entrance into and exit from the vehicle and performing such other functions as may be prescribed. The offending vehicle involved in the present case is a chartered bus which is a contract carriage as defined in Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since there is no requirement of ticketing in a chartered bus, the person who regulates the entrance/exit of the passengers and other functions is a conductor within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act even if he has been named as a helper. In the present case, this Court is of the view that the deceased was a conductor on the offending vehicle as per the testimony of PW-