NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. UMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of M.A. No. 414 of 1994 and M.A. No. 398 of 1994 preferred by National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Uma Devi and others respectively being aggrieved of the award dated 2.5.1994 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam in Claim Case No. 38 of 1983.

(2.) The claimants case was that on 29.3.1983 on the occasion of Holi festival, some people were going in the truck No. MPU 6244 owned by Prahlad and Ratanlal, driven by Chetan Kumar and insured by appellant, for enjoying a picnic to Garh Khankai Mata. The deceased Shamlal was engaged as cook for preparation of their food. The driver drove the truck rashly and negligently as a result of which it turned turtle in the Ghats of Jhaman-Patli wherein some occupants including deceased Shamlal died and some of them sustained serious injuries. The claimants, widow and 3 daughters of the deceased Shamlal, filed claim petition pleading that the deceased Shamlal was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs. 500-600 per month, claimed Rs. 1,40,000 for his death. The respondent No. 1 Chetan Kumar denied the claim and pleaded that he was not driving the truck at the relevant time. The legal representative of deceased Prahlad who also had died in the accident, resisted the claim. The case of Ratanlal is that he had sold truck to Prahlad, he was not owner of this vehicle on the date of incident, therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. though admitted that the truck in question was insured with it at the relevant time but it resisted the claim on the ground that the owner Ratanlal, in view of sections 95 and 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') before transferring the truck to Prahlad, did not intimate, there was no privity of contract between Prahlad and insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It also pleaded that the driver of the truck was not having licence. The owner also committed breach of the provisions of the Act and terms of the insurance policy, by carrying persons in goods vehicle, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation.

(3.) The learned Tribunal after recording evidence of both the parties, held that the respondent driver Chetan Kumar drove the truck rashly and negligently, as a result of which the accident occurred wherein the deceased Shamlal sustained injuries and died on 31.3.1983. It further held that on the date of incident Ratanlal was registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, he and the appellant insurance company and the driver Chetan Kumar were liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal held that Shamlal was aged about 40 years, at the time of accident and assessed his income at Rs. 180 per month and after deducting 1/3rd amount of personal expenses, determined claimants monthly dependency at Rs. 120 and yearly Rs. 1,440. He applied multiplier of 18 and awarded compensation of Rs. 25,920. Uma Devi and her daughters preferred Appeal No. 398 of 1994 for enhancement of the amount of compensation and insurance company had filed Appeal No. 414 of 1994 for exonerating it from the liability of payment of com- pensation.