LALITA RATHORE Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raising an important question relating to determination of compensation amount under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act), the present appeal is at the instance of claimants. Second Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal), Shahjahanpur by its judgment dated 9th September, 1991 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 47 of 1987 has found that death of Rajendra Kumar was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus attached to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation but has awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- only as compensation for shock and suffering and denied any other amount on short ground as after death of Rajendra Kumar, his widow Smt. Lalita Rathore got compassionate appointment in place of her husband, there is no pecuniary loss to the claimants. The question which falls for determination in the present appeal is--whether benefits received by way of compassionate appointment ought to have been taken into consideration while determining the just compensation as required under Section 168 of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts may be noticed in brief.

(2.) In the said claim petition, Smt. Pachoo, mother of deceased, Smt. Lalita widow of deceased and Km. Rekha aged about three years, daughter of deceased, were claimants. Darshan Lal, owner of bus, its driver Ghaffar Hussain, National Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the bus was insured and U.P.S.R.T.C. were impleaded as defendants. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing separate replies. It was stated that the bus bearing registration No. U.G.K. 1551 was not being driven rashly and negligently. The bus driver was holding valid driving license and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, if any, to the claimants.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for determination.