SHAHZADIBAI Vs. BABUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant-Shahzadibai, widow of the deceased, Nabinoor, against the award dated September 26, 1983, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 46 of 1978 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 8,250 for the death of the deceased, Nabinoor, together with interest at 6% per annum from September 27, 1978, the date of filing the claim petition till realisation.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :

(3.) ON a claim petition having been filed by the appellant-widow and two others, the learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found that the deceased, Nabinoor, died as a result of the accident to the truck in question which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver-respondent No. 2. The owner-respondent No. 1 was, during the material time, insured in respect of the truck in question by the insurer-respondent No. 3. The learned Tribunal found that the deceased was aged about 60 years at the time of the accident and his income as a cleaner was Rs. 300 per month out of which, the dependency of the widow who was found to be the sole dependant of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 150 per month. Adopting a multiplier of five years, the learned Tribunal has assessed the loss of dependency to be Rs. 9,000. To this amount, the learned Tribunal has added Rs. 2,000 as loss of consortium, thus computing a total amount of Rs. 11,000. Out of this, the Tribunal has deducted 25 per cent, on account of uncertainties and imponderables in life and has consequently awarded Rs. 8,250 as compensation payable to the appellant-widow by the owner and the driver-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The learned Tribunal has, however, found that the insurance company-respondent No. 3 was not liable under the insurance-agreement because it held that the truck in question was being driven by respondent No. 2, Hiralal, who had no valid licence. The reason for so holding was that the learned Tribunal took the view that the burden to prove the fact that the driver had a valid licence was on the owner and the driver which they failed to discharge. The plea that the driver did not hold a valid licence was of course raised by the insurance company-respondent No. 3.