V. SRINIVASAN Vs. RAJALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the owner of a lorry against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, awarding as against him a compensation of Rs. 15,300, in respect of the death of one Venkatachala Iyer in a lorry accident, and exonerating the insurer of all liability. The accident took place at about 8 a.m. on 6 -6 -1969 in the Katihivakkam High Road opposite to the Indian Oil Company depot near Ennore. Venkatachala Iyer was cycling along the north to south road in a southerly direction when lorry No. MDH 4939 belonging to the appellant, coming from the opposite direction, collided with his cycle and ran over him. The victim was killed on the spot. Ex. P -2 is the sketch drawn by the Inspector of Police, who took over the investigation soon after the accident. It shows that the highway is about 37 ft. 6 inches broad, the middle tarred portion being 17 ft. and the mud portion on one side being 9 ft. wide, and the mud portion, on the other, 11 ft. 6 inches. The sketch shows that the collision between the cycle and the lorry took place at a point 5 ft. to the west of the eastern edge of the tarred portion. This means that at the time of the accident the lorry had gone beyond the midline of the tarred portion into the wrong side of the road and collided against the cyclist. The evidence of P.W. 4, who is the only eye witness to the occurrence, is that as he was standing near a betel stall in Ennore High Road, he found the lorry coming at a high speed from the south and dashing against the front side of the cycle, and that he saw the cyclist falling down and one of the wheels of the lorry running over his back. It is also the case of P.W. 4, that the accident took place after the lorry had proceeded to the wrong side of the road. In fact, his evidence, which is inherently acceptable, is also corroborated by the conduct of R.W. 1, Ekambaram, the driver of the lorry, who, when prosecuted in the Criminal Court for rash and negligent driving, pleaded guilty and was convicted. It is idle for him to say from the witness box now that he was not guilty of rashness or negligence. I have little hesitation in agreeing with the Tribunal and holding that the death of the victim was the result of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.

(2.) THE next question that arises for consideration is, what is the quantum of compensation payable? The deceased used to peddle textiles by going from house to house, and according to P.W. 1, the widow, he used to pay her Rs. 100 every week. The Tribunal did not accept this evidence, as it was evidently exaggerated, but fixed the pecuniary loss to the claimants arising from the death of Venkatachala Iyer at Rs. 100 per mensem. The Tribunal also found that the deceased should have been 55 years at the time of his death, and it estimated that he might have lived for another 15 years. Had he lived for 15 years, he would have, according to the Tribunal, paid Rs. 18,000 into the hands of the claimants; and as a lump sum payment was being made, the Tribunal made a deduction of 15 per cent, out of this amount, and fixed the compensation at Rs. 15,300. I see no reason to interfere with this figure, because it cannot be said to be shockingly high.

(3.) EX . R -1, which is the Insurance policy, issued by the Insurance Company, sets out the terms of the contract between the owner of the vehicle and the insurer. Against the column 'Period of Insurance', we find the words 'From 6 -6 -1969 to 5 -6 -1970 (both dates inclusive)'. Admittedly, the premium had been paid by the lorry owner for the full period of one year. If the intention of the Insurance Co. was to cover the period of one year excluding 6th June, 1970, one would have expected the Insurance Co., to mention the period from 7 -6 -1969 to 6 -6 -1970. On the contrary, the Insurance Co. has expressly committed itself to liability for any risk from 6 -6 -1969 upto 5 -6 -1970, making it clear that both the dates were included in the period of cover. If all the 24 hours in the 6th June, 1969, were intended to be part of the period of cover, then the accident, which took place at 8 a.m. on 6 -6 -1969, would certainly be covered by the policy, because 6 -6 -1969, would commence from the midnight of 5/6th June, 1969.