SARDAR ISHWAR SINGH TRUCK Vs. HIMACHAL PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal filed under S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as THE ACT) is by the owner and the driver of the goods vehicle No.CPI-6202 and is directed against the award dated 18-9-1984 passed by Shri P. Mahta, Motor Accident Claim Case No.16 of 1982 awarding a sum of Rs. 12,500/- in favour of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 as compensation for accidental death of Shri Laxman Puri, Smt. Jamunabai and Smt. Nageser Bai.

(2.) The respondents by filling their claim before the learned tribunal under S.110 of the Act submitted that the truck aforesaid was being driven by the appellant No.2 in a very high speed and therefore in rash and negligent manner and met with an accident killing the aforesaid three persons who had been taken as passengers. It was alleged that the appellant No.2 lost control of the truck because of its high speed and hence the truck got turitle and killed the aforesaid three persons on the spot. Since the respondents claimed to be the legal representatives of the deceased persons they claim compensation in accordance with law. The appellants denied their liability to pay any compensation and submitted that the deceased persons did not die of rash and negligent driving as alleged. It was specifically submitted that one of the tyres of the front wheel of the vehicle got suddenly burst resulting in the accident as aforesaid. The accident, according to the appellants was for reasons beyond their control. They however submitted that the truck was insured with the respondent Insurance Company and hence the liability, if any would be met by the said respondent. The respondent Insurance Company submitted that carrying passenger in a goods vehicle was contrary to law and amount to breach of policy conditions and hence they were not liable. The learned tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident took place because the truck was being driven in high speed and hence rashly and negligently. The learned Tribunal found no reliable material on record to hold that the tyre of any of the front wheel of the truck had burst as alleged. The learned tribunal also held that the deceased persons were carried in the vehicle contrary to law and the appellants were guilty of breach of policy conditions. It was therefore held that the respondent Insurance Company was not liable. The learned tribunal however calculated on Rs. 12,500/- (twelve thousand and five hundred only) as total compensation for the three deaths and awarded the same by the impugned award. It is this award which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) The finding that the truck was being driven in high uncontrollable speed and hence turned turtle is not under challenge. Indeed no arguments were submitted against it. There is also no evidence in support of the defence that the accident was the result of the burst of front tyre of the vehicle. It is therefore plain that the appellants are liable to compensate the respondents Nos.1 to 3 for the death of the above named three persons. This Court is however shocked to find that these lives have been valued at Rs. 12,500/- only. They were surely the citizens of this Democratic Republic and were killed for no fault on their part. If one is able to project his knowledge and experiences of life, he would surely conclude that the learned tribunal has found these three human lives worth only a buffalo. It is well known that a good she buffalo nowadays costs more than 12,500/- and some amount is required to spend in discovering a good quality buffalo. Human life has never been so cheep and law Court has ever treated human life so contemptuously. It is true that courts and tribunals in India have applied S.1 A of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 to assess damages, but even said provision when applied to a (case) covered by the Act, has been read with S.110B which makes it obligatory on the tribunal to award 'just compensation'. It may be conceded that the quantum of 'just compensation' would differ from case to case depending on facts of each case. This however would not mean that the tribunal is entitled to award even lower than minimum below which the compensation would become unjust and therefore illegal. Can three human beings, nay the citizens of this socialist, sovereign, democratic republic be equated with one she buffalo? In the opinion of this Court, it would be an insult of this Republic itself to equate its citizens with buffaloes. This Court is also of the opinion that valuing lives of three innocent rustic citizens of the country at Rs. 12,500/- only is so much below the minimum that it amounts to an insult to our Democratic Republic itself. This Court is therefore not able to accept the verdict of the learned tribunal. The learned tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, is far more behind in its knowledge of our constitutional values, which value human lives more than anything else. The learned tribunal should, in the interest of justice, undergo a refresher course to update his value judgment so that human lives are not valued so contemptuously again.