MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAM MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISC. Appeal No. 262 of 1988 is by the owner, Misc. Appeal No. 293 of 1988 is by the insurance company, filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), arise out of the award dated 30. 1. 1988 passed in M. V. Claim Case No. 56 of 1988 by Ilnd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the appeals are thus: Deceased Vimla Shrivastava, wife of respondent No. 1 and mother of the respondent No. 2 was employed as Assistant Engineer in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') and was getting Rs. 1441/- per month besides bonus of Rs. 749. 70 per year. On 22. 5. 1980 while she was travelling in jeep No. CPK 3567 owned by the Board and insured by the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. driven by respondent No. 3 met with an accident by its dash with a tree on the Damoh-Sagar road, as a result of which Vimla Shrivastava received severe injuries and was taken to hospital but succumbed to the injuries. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as legal representatives of the deceased filed application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Act and claimed Rs. 6,32,000 for the death of the deceased, who at the time of his death was 38 years of age. The deceased could have served 20 years more till the age of superannuation, i. e. , 58 years and would have been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. Therefore, Rs. 2,32,000/- were claimed towards pay and allowances for first 10 years of service and Rs. 3,17,800 for the second 10 years service, total Rs. 5,49,800/- and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of affection for 30 years and Rs. 32,000/-were claimed as after the death of the mother a mistress (aaya) was required to be kept on monthly pay of Rs. 200/- for 13 years as the respondent No. 2 at the time of the death of her mother was only 4 years of age. The application for compensation was contested by the appellants and the driver, the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the accident did not occur due to any rash and negligent act of the driver, but, due to bursting of tyre as a result of which the vehicle did not remain in control and struck with the tree. The accident was inevitable and could not be averted even after taking reasonable care like a prudent man. On entitlement of compensation it was contended that the respondent No. 1, husband was 48 years of age who was not dependent on the earnings of the deceased as he was a contractor. The respondent No. 2 was also not dependent on the earnings of the deceased as it was the prime duty of the father to maintain her. After the death besides other service benefits a family pension of Rs. 150/- per month is being given till such time as is permitted under the Family Pension Rules. The insurance company also raised the defence that the deceased was under the employment of the Board and was occupant of the jeep, therefore, in terms of the policy the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. Alternatively it was pleaded that the liability of the insurance company is limited in accordance with Section 95 of the Act.

(3.) THE Tribunal after appreciation of evidence on record held that the tyre did not burst but punctured, therefore, the driver could have controlled the vehicle as the air from wheel starts leaking out slowly. The driver was negligent as the driver of a vehicle while driving can very well judge the pressure of the air in the wheel on the road. Therefore, respondent No. 3 could have stopped the vehicle, which he did not do. The Tribunal on the basis of loss of yearly income of Rs. 18,041. 70 for 22 years calculated the compensation of Rs. 3,95,917/- by giving a deduction of Rs. 1,32,000/- towards the personal living expenses of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,64,910/-with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 24. 11. 1980.