PRABHUDAYAL AGARWAL Vs. SARASWATI BAI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of an award made under Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act (here in after referred to as the 'Act') on the basis of an application for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - made under Section 110A of the Act. M.A. 72 of 1971 has been filed by the insured and is directed against that part of the award by which the insurer has been exonerated from all liability, M.A. 90 of 1971 is by the claimant being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation determined in the award. Both these appeals have, therefore, been heard analogously and will be governed by this judgment.

(2.) ON 24.11.68 a marriage party comprising of the deceased, Shankarlal Sharma, a boy of 19 years, was coming from Rengali in the district of Sambalpur to Cuttack for the latter's marriage. On its way, this party stopped at Nirgundi railway station at about 5 A.M. to enable some members of the party to take bath. Just then the son of Prabhudayal Agarwal of Nayasarak, Cuttack, reached there in the car bearing number O.R.U. 1021, belonging to his father, and wanted to take the bride -groom, Shankarlal Sharma, in the car saying that he had been sent by the bride's party to take him comfortably. At the outset the bride -groom, Shankarlal, was unwilling to come in that car, but being further pressed by the son of Prabhudayal Agrawal he agreed and the car came away to Cuttack carrying him. He was to marry the niece of one Praha: lad Roy Sharma who was a salesman working under the said Prabhudayal Agarwal. While the car was being driven on National High Way No. 5, at a spot one mile off from Nirgundi railway station, it suddenly swerved towards the west flank of the road and somersaulted. As a result of this accident Shankarlal Sharma died instantaneously on the spot. The mother of the deceased, Saraswati Bai, filed the claim petition alleging that she was the recipient of pecuniary benefit to the tune of Rs. 400/ - per month from the deceased.

(3.) THE Claims Tribunal found that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver, and that the insured was liable to pay compensation as the accident was caused by the driver in course of his employment. He held that the reasonable life expectation of the claimant was 65 years and, as she was at the time of claim 45 years old, she could reasonably be presumed to survive for 20 years more, and assessed the pecuniary benefit which she was receiving from the deceased at Rs. 50/ - per month, and, accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation against the insured. As regards the insurer, he held that the insurance policy (Ext. 3) did not cover the liability of the insurer on account of the death caused to Shankarlal Sharma, deceased, who was a gratuitous passenger in the insured car and, as such, excluded opposite party No. 2 from all liability. In appeal, the insured has contested that the Claims Tribunal was in error in excluding completely the insurer from liability and that at any rate the Tribunal has erred on the excessive side in regard to determination of the amount of compensation payable. The claimant in her appeal seeks an enhancement of her claim to the extent of Rs. 57,000/ -. She bases her claim for enhancement on two grounds: firstly, the life expectation of the claimant should have been held to be 70 years and, accordingly, the quantum of compensation should have been computed on the basis of the claimant's life expectancy being for a further period of 25 years, and secondly, on the evidence on record regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal should have held that the pecuniary benefit which the claimant was receiving would be Rs. 166/ - instead of Rs. 50/ - per month. Computing the compensation on the aforesaid basis as to the future span of life of the claimant and the quantum of pecuniary benefit which she was receiving from the deceased, the total amount of compensation should have been assessed at Rs. 57,000/ -.