LAWS(BOM)-1994-6-4

KRISHNA Vs. DEEPAK CHHABRA

Decided On June 24, 1994
KRISHNA Appellant
V/S
DEEPAK CHHABRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANTS, widow, minor daughter and minor son of deceased Anilkumar Bhattacharya, have preferred this appeal under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 96 of 1983 (Smt. Krishna v. Deepak Chhabra) on 3rd of May 1985 whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award in favour of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000. 00 after deducting the interim compensation under Section 92a for a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 against the respondents 1 and 3 and also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation and proportionate costs.

(2.) THE claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 6,05,000. 00 for untimely death of Shri Anilkumar Bhattacharya due to the accident which was caused by rash and negligent act of the truck driver bearing truck No. MTG-4500 being driven by the respondent No. 2. It was averred in the claim petition that claimant No. 1 is the widow of deceased Anilkumar while claimant No. 2, is the minor daughter and claimant No. 3 is the minor son of deceased Anilkumar. Deceased Anilkumar and the claimants had come to Nagpur to attend the marriage of their near relative which was performed on 13-5-1983. After the marriage, Anilkumar and his brother in-law Shri Ganguli left the house on the scooter which was being driven by Anilkumar and Shri Ganguli was sitting on the pillion. When Shri Anilkumar was going by the side of Seminary Hills towards Sadar and joined Katol Road, there is a junction and a turning, and Anilkumar crossed that turning and took his scooter to the right side towards the Liberty Theatre and at that time a truck bearing No. MTG 4500 belonging to the respondent No. 1 and being driven by the respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently at a high speed dashed against the rear portion of the scooter and as, a result thereof, Shri Anilkumar who was driving the scooter and Shri Ganguli who was sitting on the pillion, were thrown away and became unconscious. Both of them died that very night. The offending vehicle i. e. the truck bearing No. MTG-4500 was insured with the respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Company, Mount Road, Nagpur. The claimants submitted in their claim petition that at the time of his death, Anilkumar who was a diploma holder in engineering and was serving as a Junior Engineer in Ballarpur Paper Mills, was earning a salary of Rs. 1100. 00 per month. But for the untimely death of Anilkumar, he would have at least rendered the benefit of Rs. 900. 00 per month to the claimants. According to the claimants, the benefit resulting from the loss of the earning of the deceased was claimed at Rs. 5,10,998. 00; Rs. 20,000. 00 were claimed by way of compensation for pain and suffering; Rs. 96,000. 00 were claimed by way of compensation for seeking private accommodation for the family; Rs. 10,000. 00 were claimed by way of compensation for loss of consortium; Rs. 10,000. 00 were also, claimed by way of compensation for loss of affection and company of the children and Rs. 100. 00 were claimed by way of notice charges. The total aforesaid claim amounted to Rs. 6,47,098. 00 but the claimants, however, restricted their claim only at Rs. 6,05,000. 00, as afore-stated.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2 (Driver) remained absent and the claim proceedings proceeded ex-parte against him. The respondent No. 1 (Owner-insured) and the respondent No. 3 (insurer) filed their reply to the claim petition and contested by traversing the averments made in the claim petition. The owner and the insurer admitted that the truck No. MTG-4500 belonged to the respondent No. 1 and at the relevant time, was insured with the respondent No. 3. The respondents 1 and 3 denied that the driver of the truck was driving the aforesaid vehicle rashly and negligently or as a result thereof, deceased Anilkumar died. According to the respondents 1 and 3, it was the deceased who was driving his scooter rashly and negligently and he contributed to the accident.