SITARAM SIDHAR Vs. HARIRAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals are under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the award of the Tribunal involving a common question of law and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 143 of 1984 arises out of Misc. Case No. 52 of 1983 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,000/ - in favour of the injured, Sitaram who was the claimant Sitaram having died during the pendency of that appeal, his legal representative has been substituted. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 144 of 1984 arises out of Misc. Case No. 50 of 1983 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,000/ - in favour of the claimant, Pardesh and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 1984 arises out of Misc. Case No. 51 of 1983 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 34,000/ -in favour of the claimant, Syama Kurmi. The total amount of compensation thus works out of Rs. 99,000/ -. But so far as respondent No. 3, the National Insurance Company is concerned, the Tribunal has fixed its liability at Rs. 50,000/ -. It is this direction of the Tribunal which is being challenged by all these claimants in the three different appeals, there being no challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) THESE three claimants -appellants had been engaged as labourers by the owner of the truck bearing registration number ORS 6784 belonging to respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle had been insured. On 27 -2 -1983, while the vehicle was returning with Mohua flowers loaded in the same, on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, it capsized near the bridge over river Ib and on account of the over -turning of the vehicle, these three claimants sustained various injuries. They were taken to the Jharsuguda Hospital for treatment and after that Pardesh (Claimant in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1983 and appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 144 of 1984) was referred to Burla Medical College Hospital where he remained as an indoor patient for about a month as he had sustained multiple injuries and fracture on the pelvic region. So far as the claimant in Miscellaneous Case No. 51 of 1983 (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 1984) is concerned, he also sustained fracture of the right ollium and dislocation of the right acromonia and Sitaram (claimant in Misc. Case No. 52 of 1983 and appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 143 of 1984) had bruises and fracture of the shaft of the right humerous and laceration of the occipital region. On account of their injuries, each of them claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(3.) THE Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the truck in question met with an accident and such accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver. It was further found that the claimants were travelling in the said truck as loading -coolie and, therefore, having sustained the injuries on account of the accident were entitled to receive compensation. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record has assessed the compensation as has been narrated earlier and the claimants do not challenge the quantum of compensation awarded.