KAILASH RANI Vs. SATYA PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the award dated October 27, 1980 of Shri H.P.Bagchi, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellants- claimants filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the death of Harbans Lal in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 25th February, 1977 at about 12 P.M. at Ring Road, Delhi. It is alleged that the said accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle No. DLP5166 on the part of respondent no.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on February 25, 1977 at about 12 P.M. the deceased along with Kishan lal was going from his restaurant in Darya Ganj on a motor cycle No. DLM8231 on Ring Road. The motor cycle was driven by the deceased and Kishan Lal was sitting on the pillion seat. When the motor cycle reached a place known as Bela Road from Alipur Road, bus No. DLP5166 which was being driven by respondent no.1 at an excessive speed rashly and negligently came on the other side of the road and knocked down the said motorcycle. The bus was at a high speed that even after the accident the driver was unable to control the same and dragged the motor cycle for a long distance. It was alleged that the deceased was rushed to hospital where he died on the same day. Respondent no.1 was driving the bus in the course of his employment and under the control and permission of respondent no.2 and the said respondent is vicariously liable to pay the compensation -for the tortious act committed by respondent no.1. The vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 and it was alleged that all the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The appellants have suffered and undergone untold spain, agony, mental anguish and sufferings by the sudden loss of life of the bread earner of the family and they have been rendered destitute and helpless as the deceased was the only earning member in the family. The history of logevity in the family was traced and it was contended before the Tribunal that if the deceased had not been killed in the unfortunate accident he would have progressed in his business and his income would have increased to Rs.5.000.00 to Rs.6,000.00 per month.

(3.) The petition was contested by respondents 2 and 3 and the matter proceeded ex parte against respondent no.1. The usual pleas of denial were taken in the written statement by the respondents. The Insurance Company, respondent no.3, took a preliminary objection that respondent no.2 violated the terms and conditions of policy and, as such. the company was not liable to any compensation. It was also contended that the liability of the respondent company was limited to the extent of Rs.50,000.00.