NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by original non-applicant no. 2, appellant herein, National Insurance co. Ltd. (for short 'insurance company')and thereby, challenged the award dated 20. 3. 1987, passed in the Motor Accident claim No. 29 of 1983, by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Yavatmal (for short "the Tribunal') and thereby awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 1,05,000 in favour of original applicants-respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein, and against appellant insurance company and the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 6, with 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of claim application till the date of realisation. There is no appeal by the owner, respondent No. 6. Facts:

(2.) ON 22. 4. 1982, one Rambharose Upadhyay, was driving truck No. CPH 7585, owned by respondent No. 6, met with an accident and he was crushed to death, because the axle of the front wheel broke down as a result of which the truck turned turtle on the driver's side. Deceased Rambharose was getting a salary of Rs. 1,000 and allowance of Rs. 500 per month at the relevant time. The deceased was spending the amount of Rs. 1,000 per month on his family, i. e. , the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the age of the deceased driver was 47 years, on the date of the accident. Respondent nos. 1 to 5, therefore, preferred an application for compensation under the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'm. V. Act')before the Tribunal and claimed the total compensation of Rs. 2,41,000. Respondent no. 1 is widow, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are sons and the respondent No. 5 is daughter of the deceased Rambharose.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 6 is the owner of the vehicle who resisted the claim by its written statement dated 2. 8. 1984. The pleadings as well as, reasons or objections were quite feeble. The basic contention raised was that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the claim of the applicants was highly exaggerated and hence deserves to be reduced. Appellant insurance company by its written statement dated 10. 9. 1984 resisted the compensation amount but the other amounts could not be denied specifically. Both the contesting respondents could not deny the basic accident, as well as, the claim as such made by respondents-original claimants. There was no challenge or objection raised about jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as well as, the maintainability of the application before such Tribunal and/or entitlement of the respondents for the compensation. However, the insurance company now submits that the accident was caused because of mechanical fault and there was no case of any negligence by the deceased driver.