ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL Vs. SUDHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Gokaran, son of Ganga Prasad, aged about 20 years, was carrying on the family cultivation and was also working on the tube-well and flour mill of the family. The family owned 60 bighas of land, a tube-well and a flour mill. The father of Gokaran is an old man of 60 years and, therefore, on account of his old age he was not looking after the family business and the cultivation, which was being looked after by the deceased Gokaran. On 8-5-1977 at about 2.45 P.M. Gokaran was going from his village Awagarh on a bicycle. Truck No. U P.I. 5801 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Chandrapal, opposite party No. 2, and owned by Sardar Harnam Singh, the opposite party No. 1, came from behind at a high speed. The deceased was proceeding on his left hand side patri which was his correct side. The truck knocked down the deceased from behind and crushed him to death. The driver on seeking what had happened was callous enough to run away from the spot along vith the vehicle. One Keshave Dev lodged an F.I R. Large number of persons, namely Babu Ram, Netrapal, Gopal and several others saw the incident which took place near village Khusari on Lalesar-Awagarh-Etah.

(2.) IT was contended that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 500/- and besides the petitioner (widow) the father, mother and two minor brothers of the deceased were also dependent upon him. The entire family has thus been left without means. An extra expenditure of at least Rs. ?00/- per month was also being borne by the family in engaging labour for doing the work which the deceased was doing in cultivation, tube-well and flour mill. As no other able bodied male member has been left in the family to look after these things, the income of the family has been reduced by at least Rs. 25,000/- per year. The petitioner is a young widow of the deceased and has suffered great mental shock and agony and has lost her only support and thus in all she has claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/-.

(3.) THE Insurance Company filed a separate written statement taking the same defence which was taken by the owner and the driver, except for the fact that they admitted that the accident in question took place on 8-5 77 and vehicle No. U.P.I. 5801 was involved in that accident. They also asserted that the claim was exaggerated.