PARKASH WANTI Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the order of the Tribunal by which he has allowed the application and granted a sum of Rs. 19,440.00 to the appellant respondents 1 and 2, but has dismissed it against respondent No. 3.

(2.) An application was moved by the present appellant No. 1, Smt. Prakash Wati widow of deceased Ram Lal on her behalf and on behalf of the minor children with the allegations that on 20-1-1964 the deceased while going on a cycle met with an accident with a motor scooter bearing registration No. DLR 2595 and thereafter succumbed to the injury on the same day. It was alleged that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving on the part of Gian Singh who was driving the scooter. Respondent No.

(3.) was alleged to be the owner of the scooter and Respondent No. 3 was M/S Northern India Transporters Insurance Co. with which scooter was claimed to be insured. Respondent No. 3 took objection that the scooter was not insured with it and the trial court framed a preliminary issue that whether the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of accident By his order dated 28-4-1966 the Tribunal dismissed the application against respondent No. 3 as it found that the vehicle was not insured with respondent 3 on the date of the accident. On merits the Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the driver. The Tribunal fixed the earning of the deceased at Rs. 175.00 p.m. On the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was about 50 years, he came to the conclusion that he must have lived for 15 years more and therefore computed the amount for 15 years and calculated the amount as Rs. 24,300.00. He however made deduction from this amount by 20% due to uncertainties of life following Krishnamma v. Alice Veigas and another (1966 A.C.J. 366) and thus granted an award of Rs. 19,440.00. The appellant feeling aggrieved has filed the present appeal. No appeal has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. The finding, therefore, that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by respondents No. 1 not having bean challenged, is hereby affirmed.