SUSHMA SINGH Vs. SUNDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') by the applicants-claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 133 of 1988, decided on 23.7.1998.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that on 18.4.1985 at about 11 a.m. deceased Harbhanu Singh Sikarwar was going on his motor cycle No. CPG 5252 along with his friend Asharam from village Lalghati to Lashkar via Purani Chhawani. At that time tractor No. MBG 6576, being driven by respondent No. 2, Rajaram rashly and negligently at a high speed dashed against the motor cycle; the impact of the dash was so severe that Harbhanu Singh and Asharam fell down and the tractor ran over the motor cycle as a result of which Harbhanu Singh died on the spot, Asharam was seriously injured and the motor cycle was damaged. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which Crime No. 30 of 1985 for offences under sections 279, 337 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code was registered. Exh. P-4-C is photocopy of the roznamcha which has been proved by Parasram, Head Constable of Police, AW 2. At the time of his death, Harbhanu Singh was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department and his salary was Rs. 902 per month. The claimant-applicant-appellant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased and applicants-appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are his minor children. They were wholly dependent upon the deceased. Deceased owned 40 bighas of agricultural land in village Lalghati and he used to get agricultural income of Rs. 60,000 per year from agriculture. Applicants-claimants have claimed total compensation of Rs. 5,65,500. At the time of the accident the vehicle (tractor) was owned by respondent No. 1 and it was insured with respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any written statement. The respondent No. 3 in its written statement denied the claim of applicants-claimants that deceased was getting annual income of Rs. 60,000 from agriculture. Respondent No. 3 has also denied that at the time of the accident the tractor was insured with it and, as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that at the time of the accident the tractor was being driven without any valid licence and for this reason also the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

(3.) The learned Tribunal examined the matter and came to the conclusion that on 18.4.1985 the accident took place, as alleged, and Harbhanu Singh died on the spot due to the accident caused by the vehicle. It was also held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,36,600 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. It was, however, held that it was not proved that at the time of the accident the tractor was insured with respondent No. 3 and, as such, the insurance company was exonerated from payment of compensation. This award has been assailed by the claimants-applicants asking for enhanced compensation.