GENDALAL & ORS. Vs. HAKIM SINGH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is only for enhancement of compensation. Though cross -objection has been filed but as ordered by this Court no affidavit intimating the date on which notice was received has been filed and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the cross -objection is filed within time. Even otherwise, insurance company is not having any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest on all the grounds, therefore, the cross -objection is not maintainable and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/.

(2.) DECEASED Hukum Singh died on spot after tractor owned by respondents no. 1 to 3, son of Habbulal and driven by respondent no. 5 Subodhkumar, dashed against Hukum Singh, which resulted into his death, therefore the deceased was a third party and insurance company is liable to indemnify the third party.

(3.) GENDALAL (A.W. 1) had deposed that deceased was earning Rs.60/ - per day and from his income he was maintaining the family consisting of his parents and his son. On perusal of entire cross -examination of Gendalal, there is no cross -objection regarding the income of deceased by the insurance company. Munshilal (A.W. 2) has deposed about the rash and negligent driving. No evidence has been led by insurance company, owner and driver of the vehicle before the Claims Tribunal. In the circumstances, Claims Tribunal has committed error in holding that on failure to produce the account the income of the deceased at Rs. 60/ - per day cannot be accepted. This finding is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. The witnesses have categorically deposed that the deceased was a labour and earning Rs. 607 -per day. It is not expected from a labour to maintain account of his income. Claims Tribunal has expected too much from a labour. The reasons for ascertaining the income of deceased at Rs. 800/ - per month is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. The finding is set aside.