SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. MAYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against award dated 30. 9. 1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad, in Claim Case No. 2 of 1982. The Claims Tribunal has given an award of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realisation, against the appellant respondent Nos. 6 and 8. The respondent No. 8, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , has filed the Appeal No. 489 of 1989 against the same award. The order in this appeal shall govern the disposal of that appeal too.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that Keshav Prasad Shukla died in an accident leaving behind his wife and four minor daughters. They filed a claim under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (henceforth 'the Act' ). It was claimed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that the deceased Keshav Prasad was killed in an accident with truck No. CPB 6317 on 1. 8. 1987. The deceased met with the aforesaid accident when he was going on motor cycle from Hoshangabad to Itarsi along with a pillion rider. The truck was driven by the respondent No. 6, Syed Masood Ali negligently at an excessive speed from opposite direction on the wrong side of the road. The truck dashed against the motor cycle at great speed. Consequently, Keshav Prasad died and the pillion rider received injuries. At the time of his death, Keshav Prasad was aged 33 years. He was enrolled as an advocate in July, 1975 and was having an average monthly income of Rs. 1,500/ -. The father of the appellant Badriprasad was alive and was aged about 60 years. His grandfather, Narmada Prasad was alive too and was aged about 81 years. Thus, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of future pecuniary loss suffered by them and another Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering, Rs. 2,000/- were further claimed for damage to the motor cycle.

(3.) A joint reply was filed on behalf of Syed Masood Ali, respondent No. 6 and Zamin Ali, respondent No. 7. They denied that the accident was caused by negligence of the driver Syed Masood Ali. It was claimed that accident was caused because of the negligence of the deceased. The respondent No. 8, the insurance company, also filed a written statement contesting the claim that the company was liable to pay damages. It was claimed that the truck driver was not having a valid licence at the time of accident. It was further claimed that the liability of the company ceased because the appellant truck owner Sabir Hussain had transferred truck in favour of respondent No. 7, Zamin Ali prior to the date of accident without the company's consent. It was also claimed that in any case the company's liability did not extend beyond Rs. 50,000/ -. It was the statutory liability and, therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 cannot claim more than that in absence of any term enhancing the liability.