KRISHNA WANTI Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has been filed against the order dated 9th February, 1987, passed by Mr. V.B. Gupta, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 43,2007.00- (less Rs. 15.000.00 already paid to appellant under section 92-A), i.e., Rs. 28,200.00 with costs of Rs. 500.00 in favour of the appellant and against the respondent No. 3, insurance company, on behalf of all the respondents.

(2.) The relevant brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the deceased, Harish Kumar, died in an accident which took place on the midnight of 23/24.3.1983. While the deceased was boarding a cycle-rickshaw after witnessing a night show in Samrat Cinema when truck No. PBO 681 driven by its driver (respondent No. 1) struck the cycle-rickshaw and he fell and sustained injuries which proved fatal and on account of which the deceased died. It was alleged in the petition that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. The truck is owned by respondent No. 2 which is insured with respondent No. 3, insurance company. The deceased was unmarried and was aged at the time of his death about 25 years. He was employed with the Association of Lawyers at Delhi and his income was Rs. 600.00 per month. It was further alleged that the deceased had more income from typing work. Having regard to the family history about the longevity of life inasmuch as his grandfather died at the age of 75 years and grandmother was still alive and was of the age of 80 years. It was reasonably expected that the deceased would have lived up to the age of 55 to 60 years. The appellant had also claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application.

(3.) In the written statements, factum of accident and the names of the driver, owner of the truck and insurance of the truck with respondent No. 3 have not been denied. However, it has been denied that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, but, in fact, the accident took place due to negligence and non-controlling of the rickshaw-puller who could not stop his rickshaw at the time when deceased was boarding the same as the rickshaw was parked at the slope and it immediately started going back towards the road and struck with the rear portion of the truck. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 was not liable to pay any compensation. It has no doubt been admitted that the vehicle was driven by respondent No. 1 during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 has also denied its liability to pay as according to it respondent No. 1 was driving the truck at the time of accident without any valid driving licence and R.C. and any other documents and even without any authority of respondent No. 2 and that the liability of insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000.00 as per terms of the policy.