FATEH NARAIN HAJELA Vs. RAWAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Fateh Narain Hajela against the award given by the Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on 19 -2 -69.

(2.) THE case before the Tribunal was that Respondent No. 1 Rawal Singh is the owner of the truck No. USR - -232 which is insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay (Respondent No. 3) and Respondent No. 2 Harvansingh S/o Keshar -Singh was the driver of the said truck, that an accident took place in front of Science College, Jhanshi Road, Gwalior on 26 -12 -1962 at about 11 -00 a.m. The Appellant is the father of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Saxena who, at the time of the accident, was over 20 years of age and was a student of third year (final) of the Mechanical Engineering course of the Polytechnic Institute at Lashkar. Then it is said that the Appellant is the sole heir and the legal representative of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Saxena. At about 11 -00 a.m., on the said day, Ramesh Chandra Saxena was proceeding on Jhansi Road on a bicycle and was going on his left hand side of the road. One Subhash Chandra, a class -fellow of the deceased was also sitting on that very bicycle. Harvansingh, Respondent No. 2, at that time, came driving the said truck from the opposite direction with a speeed of about 50 miles an hour. The truck was being driven on its wrong side. Respondent No. 2 was driving the truck in the course of his employment with Mr. Rawal Singh Respondent No. 1. The truck dashed against the bicycle of the deceased, as a result of that the deceased Ramesh Chandra Saxena was run over by the truck and he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The truck was driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which the accident took place. The Appellant claimed damages against all the three Respondents. He claimed Rs. 500/ - as expenses for funeral ceremonies and 5 lacs for the loss of earnings by the deceased. In all, he has claimed Rs. 5,00,500/ - for death of his son from all the Respondents. In the trial Court, Respondent No. 2 did not contest the claim and he was proceeded ex -parte. Respondent No. 1 resisted the claim on different grounds, namely, that Respondent No. 2 was not driving the truck at that particular time, nor was he in his service. Respondent No. 1 is not liable for the tortious act of Respondent No. 2, that there was no negligence on the part of Respondent No. 2 in driving the truck and on the contrary because of rashness and negligence on the part of Ramesh Chandra Saxena the accident took place and therefore, the Appellant is not entitled for any compensation. It was also said that the compensation asked for is exorbitant. Respondent No. 3 resisted the claim in the trial Court, saying that because of the negligence of Ramesh Chandra Saxena, the accident took place. On the part of the driver, there was no negligence or rashness in driving the truck. Therefore, they are not liable for and compensation. Alternatively, they also submitted that if there is to be any liability then their liability is to the extent of Rs. 20,000/ - according to the terms of the insurance policy and therefore, also they are not liable to the amount which exceeds Rs. 20,000/ -. The trial Court framed in all nine issues. The issues framed are as under - -

(3.) BEFORE understanding the objection of the learned Counsel, we would like to quote the very paragraph, which deals with the subject of quantum and appeal against it, it is as follows: