MUNNALAL Vs. MUNNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the claimants, who have filed these appeals aggrieved by the common award dated 22. 11. 1996 in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of 1989, passed by II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Murwara-Katni, district Jabalpur.

(2.) ON 7. 11. 1988, deceased Munnibai, Kamla Bai and Vijay Kumar were travelling in Tempo No. MIK 7738, driven by Indra Kumar, respondent No. 4, owned by Pawan Kumar son of Mohanlal Shrivas, insured with respondent No. 5. When the Tempo was near Peer Baba, on National Highway No. 7, truck No. MBK 7158, driven respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, came from the opposite direction and collided with the Tempo, resulting in death of Munnibai, Kamla Bai and Vijay Kumar.

(3.) AGAINST the owner, driver and insurer of the two offending vehicles, the husband of the deceased Munnibai, claimed compensation in Claim Case No. 47 of 1989 of Rs. 3,61,450, in Claim Case No. 48 of 1989, the legal representatives of the deceased Kamla Bai claimed compensation of Rs. 3,59,383, while in Claim Case No. 49 of 1989, the parents of the deceased Vijay Kumar claimed compensation of Rs. 14,25,000. The Tempo driver Indra Kumar did not appear and was proceeded ex pane, while the owner of the Tempo contested the claim, but, during the pendency of the claim, he died. As he had no legal representative, hence, his name was deleted. The insurer of the Tempo and the owner, driver and insurer of the truck contested the claims. The Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the truck driver. The Tribunal in all the three cases estimated the dependency at Rs. 200 per month, Rs. 2,400 per year, applied the multiplier of 16, to work out the amount of Rs. 38,400. In this for love and affection Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1,000 for funeral expenses were further added, thus, a total amount of Rs. 42,400 was awarded as compensation, which was ordered to be paid by the owner and driver of the truck. The insurer of the truck was exonerated as the owner did not produce the policy and driving licence of the truck driver.