NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SHANTIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the original non-applicant No. 2/appellant herein. National Insurance Company Limited (for short 'insurance Company'), and thereby, challenged the award dated 20-3-1987, passed in Motor Accident Claim No. 29/1983, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal (for short 'the Tribunal'), and thereby awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- in favour of the original applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, and against the appellant Insurance Company and the respondent No. 6, owner of the vehicle, with 6% interest per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. 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 the 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 turtled on the driver's side. The deceased Rambharose was getting salary of Rs. 1000/- and allowance of Rs. 500/- per month at the relevant time. The deceased was spending the amount of Rs. 1000/- per month on family i. e. the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the age of the deceased driver was 47 years, on the date of the accident. The 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 total compensation of Rs. 2,41,000/ -. The respondent No. 1 is a widow, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 are sons and respondent No. 5 is a daughter of the deceased Rambharose.

(3.) THE 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. The 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 the respondents/original claimants. There was no challenge or objection raised about the 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, submitted that the accident caused because of mechanical fault, and there was no case of any negligence by the deceased driver.