TUKARAM VAIJNATH BAHIRWAL Vs. NASIB KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the original petitioners against the judgment and award dated 31st October, 1983, passed by the District and Sessions Judge and Ex Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, in Motor Accident Claim No.4 of 1980, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/ has been awarded with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.

(2.) FACTS relevant for decision of this appeal may be briefly stated as under. Accident took place on 15th March, 1980 . On account of the vehicular accident the father of the appellants received injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries on the very day. The appellants are the son and the daughter of deceased Vaijnath. They filed the petition for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/ . The truck owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 was involved in the accident. The said truck was insured with respondent No.3. The age of deceased Vaijnath at the time of accident was about 40 years. He was agriculturist. On the fateful day of the accident, he along with some other agriculturists went to the "Market Committee Office" to sell agricultural produce. He parked the bullock cart 8 to 10 cubits away from the road and he was sitting on the cart. It is alleged that at that time the said truck came at high speed and while negotiating a turn, the truck run over Vaijnath. He was shifted to Civil Hospital , Beed in an injured condition. However, he succumbed to the injuries at about 1.00 p.m. The deceased Vaijnath was also dealing with the business of selling milk. His annual income was not less than Rs.6,000/ . The appellant No.2 was minor, whereas the appellant No.1 was only 20 years old at the time of death of Vaijnath. Two months after the accident the mother of the appellants also died. It is alleged that deceased Vaijnath was the victim of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the said truck. Therefore, the appellants claimed compensation from the owner and driver of the said truck as well as from the Insurance Company with which the truck was injured.

(3.) THE Insurance Company (respondent No.3) reiterated the same stand as taken by the owner and the driver of the truck. However, the fact that the truck was insured with the Insurance Company during the relevant period of the accident has not come to be disputed.