RAMESH KUMAR Vs. GADARAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award of compensation of Rs. 18,000/-given to the respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) The facts not in dispute are that appellant Ramesh Kumar was the owner of motor-cycle No. MPS 2689 and it was insured with the respondent No. 4, Ruby General Insurance Company Ltd. under a comprehensive policy. Ramesh Kumar owned a rice mill at Silyari where the deceased Budharu was employed as a mechanic/helper but he left his job on 3-1-1970. However, in the early hours of 16-2-1970, the appellant came to the house of the deceased at village Panosari and took him on his motor-cycle for starting his Mill. On their way to Silyari, the motor-cycle met with an accident and because of the head injuries the deceased died on the spot. The appellant was unhurt. According to the claimants, respondent No. 1 is the father, respondent No. 2 is the mother and respondent No. 3 is the widow of the deceased and they were dependent on him. The deceased was working in the Mill of the appellant on a salary of Rs. 150/- per month as mechanic and he died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant. The respondents, therefore, claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. In his written statement the appellant denied that he was rash or negligent in driving his motor-cycle. The appellant was driving his motor-cycle in normal speed and was going from west to east side. The accident took place when he was about to take a turn on the left side on the road crossing at Simga when one motor-truck coming in excessive speed from the northern direction on the Bilaspur-Raipur road took a sudden turn on the left side, that is towards the appellant. The driver gave no horn or warning and the deceased, who was sitting on the pillion, got frightened and he caught hold of the appellant as a result he lost balance and the motor-cycle dashed against a culvert on the road side with the result the deceased died on the spot because of the accident. The deceased was employed in his Mill up to 3-1-1970 and his salary was Rs. 60/- per month and not Rs. 150/-as claimed. Under the circumstances, the appellant is not at all liable for damages. The respondent No. 4, Insurance Company in its separate written statement submitted that under the insurance policy risk of any passenger travelling on the pillion of the motor-cycle was not covered. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not at all liable.

(3.) The Claims Tribunal found that previously the deceased was in the employment of the appellant in his rice Mill on a monthly salary of Rs. 60/-per month but he left his job on 3-1-1970. On 16-2-1970, the appellant took the deceased on the pillion of his motor-cycle for seeking his help for starting the Mill. On the way, the motor-cycle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant and the deceased died on the spot. The respondents 1 and 2 being parents and respondent No. 3 being widow of the deceased, they were dependent, on the deceased and they were entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 18,000/-. This included Rs. 15,840/-towards loss of income for 44 years at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and Rs. 2,160/-as general damages as he was the only child of the respondents 1 and 2. The Insurance Company was not liable as the deceased was not in the employment of the appellant and the risk of the pillion rider was not covered under the Insurance Policy.