FIROZKHA MAHMEDKHA PATHAN Vs. SAROJBEN JAGDISHBHAI BHAKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the owner and the insurer of a matador involved in a vehicular accident causing death of one Jagdishbhai Bhakta. It appears that on the date of accident the deceased, his wife and other family members were travelling in the said matador as passengers. The matador was stopped to enable the passengers to answer the nature's call. Rest of the passengers climbed the matador. Just when the deceased was about to climb the matador, according to the witness, the matador driver suddenly started the vehicle, in the process, the deceased received serious injuries and later on succumbed. His widow and son filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs from the driver, the owner and the insurer of the matador. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that since the deceased was a passenger in the goods vehicle, there was breach of condition of insurance and therefore, Insurance company was not liable to pay risk.

(2.) The Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence held that accident occurred due to sole negligence of the matador driver, repelled the opposition of the Insurance company, turned down the plea of the Insurance company for being absolved of its liability. On the question of quantum, the Tribunal noted that the deceased was a Secondary School teacher earning a salary of Rs.2000/­ per month. He was aged about 43 years. The Tribunal granted 50% increase for the future, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenditure of the deceased himself, applied a multiplier of 14 and arrived at loss of dependency benefit at Rs.5,25,336/­. To this the Tribunal added a sum of Rs.20,000/­ towards loss of expectation of life, Rs.2000/­ towards post death ceremonies, Rs.5000/­ towards loss of consortium and thus arrived at a sum of Rs.5,52,336/­. The Tribunal ignored the plea of the claimants that the deceased was also earning Rs.60,000/­ by way of agricultural operation and Rs.33,000/­ by selling milk. This award has given rise to the present appeal and cross objections by the claimants seeking higher compensation.

(3.) The discussion would have to be divided in three parts regarding negligence, the liability of the Insurance company and the quantum of compensation. Addressing the issue of negligence the same is possible of summary disposal. It is virtually undisputed that the accident happened when the deceased was about to climb on to the matador, the driver suddenly started the vehicle resulting into serious injuries to the deceased. As per the deposition of Sarojben, widow of the deceased at exh. 34, the deceased along with his family members were travelling from Bardoli to Vadodara in the matador. Near Bhalej village, the matador was stopped for everyone to ease themselves. All other drivers climbed the matador. Deceased was about to climb when the driver started the vehicle suddenly. At that time the door of the vehicle opened with a jerk and dashed against the deceased who fell down and got tangled. Though this witness has not elaborated it appears that in the process some part of the matador, after the deceased fell down, must have hit him causing such serious injuries. It would always be impossible to imagine a person receiving fatal injuries merely by being hit by a door, of vehicle which has started suddenly, opening. Be that as it may, the entire blame must be that of the driver who in such a negligent manner drew the vehicle so as to endanger human life.