PREM SINGH Vs. TIKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 4, 1957, Shri J.M. Tandon, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi, passed a decree for Rs. 15,000.00 with proportionate costs in favour of Tika Ram and his wife, Mrs. Vidya Vati. Kartar Singh, Prem Singh and the Premier Life and General Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi, against whom the decree was passed, filed this regular first appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case are not disputed. On June 8, 1953, Parkash and his brother Manohar Lal were going to Badarpur Railway Station from a school for blind persons, situated at Lal Kuan. Manohar Lal being blind, he was being led by his elder brother Parkash. When they were near Prahladpur, between Faridabad and Lal Kuan, truck No. DLH-6838, belonging to Kartar Singh and Prem Singh, came from the back side and knocked down Parkash The truck was being driven by Prem Singh. After the accident, Parkash was removed. in the same truck to Safdarjang Hospital, where on the same day he succumbed to his injuries. Under the Fatal Accidents Act. 1855 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and on the allegation that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently without any regard to the rules of the road, the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased instituted a suit for recovering Rs. 40,000.00, as damages, from the owners of the truck the driver and the Insurance Company with which that vehicle was insured. After holding that Tika Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati had each suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 7,500.00 the Subordinate Judge, as stated above, passed a decree for Rs. 15,000.00 only.

(3.) The following issues were framed in the case: 1. Whether Sri Parkash deceased died as a result of injury received by him on account of the rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLH 6838 by defendant No. 2 as alleged in para. 2 of the plaint ? 2. Whether the accident had occurred as a result of contributory negligence of Sri Parkash deceased and Manobar Lal plaintiff No. 3 ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs have a locus standii to file the present suit ? 4. To what damages, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled ? 5. What is the liability of defendant No. 3 ? 6. Relief. Issue No. I was decided in favour of the respodents. Regarding issue No. 3 it was held that only the parents had locus standii to claim damages as under the Act a suit can be for the benefit of the parents but not for the benefit of the brothers and sisters. Issue No. 2 was found against the appellants. On issue Nos. 4 and 5, findings were given that Tikka Ram and Mrs. Vidya Vati were each entitled to Rs. 7,500,- by way of damages and that the insurance Company was also liable.