VIMAL RAI Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was an accident on 16th July, 1963 as a result of which, Balwant Rai, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 died on the 17th July, 1963. The accident was caused by a motor cycle bearing registration No. DLO 2706, Jawa make, 1962 model. At the time of the accident the motor cycle was being driven by Ram Lal respondent No. 4. The appellants filed a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Delhi, claiming Rs. 1,50,000.00 as compensation.

(2.) At the time of the accident, the motor cycle in question stood registered in the relevant records of the Motor Licencing Authority, Delhi, in the name of Gurcharan Singh, respondent No. 1. Gurcharan Singh had taken out an insurance policy covering third parly risks from Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi, respondent No. 3. The insurance policy had been issued on or about the 15th October, 1962 and was effective for one year. In the application for compensation, the appellants had impleaded one M.G. Krishna Rao, as respondent No. 2 and they had shown Gurcharan Singh and Rao, as owners of the Motor cycle. Ram Lal respondent No. 4 was stated to be a mechanic in the workshop of Gulzari Lal who was made respondent No. 5.

(3.) The age of the deceased was stated to be 41 years and 7 months at the time of his death and it was alleged that he was employed in the Ministry of Home Affairs and had a monthly income of Rs. 300.00. Along with the petition, a statement of claim was filed. Rs. 61,200.00 were claimed as the salary, which the deceased would have earned during the remaining 17 years of his service ; Rs. 30,000.00 were claimed on account of loss of the chances of promotion; Rs. 32,000.00 were claimed as loss of pension for 18 years at the rate of Rs. 1,800.00 per year ; Rs. 18,000.00 were claimed as loss of income, which could have been supplemented after retirement by the own efforts of the deceased and Rs. 8,400.00 were claimed for the mental agony suffered by the appellants. The claim as to loss of pension and the claim as to the loss of supplementary income after retirement were based on the assumption that the deceased would have lived upto the age of 75 years.