NASEEMA Vs. P.C. SEBASTAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the widow and children of the late Shri Abdul Khader, who died as a result of an accident on November 25, 1978, involving a goods vehicle, KLO -2607. The vehicle was owned by the second respondent. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by the first respondent. The third respondent is the insurer. At the time of his death, the late Shri Abdul Khader was aged 28 years, and the appellants were depending entirely on him for sustenance. The loss suffered by his death was assessed by them as Rs. 3,00,000, and a further amount of Rs. 10,000 was claimed for pain and suffering of the deceased.

(2.) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, awarded an amount of Rs. 40,000 with interest at 6 per cent. from May 25, 1979, on the finding that the first respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, and that occasioned the accident and the consequent death of Shri Abdul Khader. It was, however, found that since the deceased was a passenger in the goods vehicle, the third respondent -insurer was not liable. The first appellant was allowed to realise Rs. 10,000 out of the amount of compensation and the costs of the petition. The remaining amount of Rs. 30,000 was directed to be deposited in a nationalised bank in equal shares in the names of the second and third appellants till they attain majority. The first appellant was, however, allowed to receive interest on the deposit till the second and third appellants attain majority. The appellants assail the award on two grounds : Firstly, that the insurer also should have been made liable for payment of compensation, and, secondly, that a higher amount should have been awarded as compensation.

(3.) THE Tribunal exonerated the insurer for the only reason that the written statement of the third respondent indicated that the insurer was not liable because the deceased was a traveller in the goods vehicle, and no contract of employment was established. This approach of the Tribunal does not seem to us to be correct. Section 95(2)(a) of the Act deals with claims arising out of accidents involving goods vehicles. The Tribunal appears to have assumed that no person can travel in a goods vehicle other than its crew. This is evidently unsustainable.