INDRA PAL PANDEY Vs. HARBANSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals arise out of the award dated 11. 9. 1995 passed in Claim Case No. 73 of 1990 by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Maihar, District Satna. In M. A. No. 971 of 1995, the claimant is the appellant who seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, while M. A. No. 258 of 1996 has been filed by the insurance company for setting aside the award against it.

(2.) FACTS which are not in dispute: that on 13. 11. 1982 deceased Butni Bai, wife of claimant Indra Pal Pandey, with her minor children, one of them was deceased Rajjan alias Soordas, a blind child, and her goods, was travelling in truck No. MPA 7941 which was owned by Harbansh Singh, driven by Ramashrya Kol and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in M. A. No. 971 of 1995. When the truck was going on the downhill road, the driver lost its control on the turn, as a result it toppled down. Butni Bai and Soordas died. The appellant filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on 25. 1. 1983 to claim compensation of Rs. 2,45,000 for the death of Butni Bai and Soordas caused in motor accident. The claim was contested by the respondents. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the truck driver. Moreover, as the principle of res ipsa loquitur fully applied in the present case, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 for the death of Soordas while Rs. 25,000 for the death of Butni Bai as the Tribunal observed that the claimant has failed to establish the financial contribution of his wife to the family. The interest was awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization.

(3.) IN these appeals, there is no challenge to the finding recorded by learned Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the truck driver. However, the insurance company has prayed its absolvement from the liability on the ground that the owner and driver were carrying passengers unauthorisedly in breach of the conditions of the policy. Therefore, the insurer could not have been made liable to pay the compensation or to indemnify the insured. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Shanker Prasad v. Malti Devi, 1998 ACT 860 (MP ).