PURANSINGH FATTESINGH OSAHAN Vs. MURLILAL CHANDIRAM PINJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise from the judgment and decree passed by the Civil judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil suit No. 47 of 1976. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the appellants in First Appeal No. 174/83 whereas the third defendant in the aforesaid suit is the appellant in First Appeal No. 207/83. These appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE suit was instituted for realisation of compensation on account of the death of bhupendrasingh, son of plaintiffs 1 and 2. Plaintiffs 3 and 5 are the sisters of the deceased and 6th plaintiff is the brother of the deceased. The said suit was instituted under the Fatal accidents Act, 1855 (Act No. 13 of 1855 ). On 22-3-1975, while Bhupendrasingh was travelling in an autorikshaw, truck No. MHV-1232, which was driven by the second defendant knocked against the autorikshaw by which Bhupendrasingh was thrown out and the truck ran over him; ultimately bhupendrasingh succumbed to the injuries on account of the said accident. The said truck belongs to the first respondent. It was insured with the third respondent-insurance company. The suit was launched on the allegation that the accident was the result of the culpable negligence of the second defendant, the driver.

(3.) THOUGH defendants 1 and 3 in their joint written statement contested the claim contending that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver, that contention was not accepted by the trial Court. The defendants 1 and 3 also contested the quantum of compensation; the claim was for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh on account of the death of Bhupendrasingh. The trial Court, as indicated above, found that the accident was due to the negligence of the second defendant and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 39,124/- in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2; the decree directed the third defendant to pay the amount. The decree also provided for interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till recovery if the third defendant does not deposit the said amount within a period of one month from the date of decree. The suit was dismissed with respect of plaintiffs 3 to 6. The learned Judge directed the third defendants to pay proportionate costs to the plaintiffs.