KANTA SIBAL Vs. SANDHU TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgment dated 7.2.1986 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 on account of the death of Baikunth Lal Kundra in a motor accident during the night intervening 26/ 27.1.1983 and the liability has been fixed on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

(2.) The deceased Baikunth Lal Kundra was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. PNZ 104 from Delhi to Amritsar on the night intervening 26/27.1.1983. At about 1 a.m. when the bus reached near Pipli, it struck against a truck bearing registration No. DHL 5791 coming from the opposite direction. With the impact of the strike between the two vehicles, Baikunth Lal was seriously injured and he died on the next day. Learned Tribunal held Vasan Singh, respondent No. 3, responsible for causing the accident as he was found to be plying the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was 60 years of age at the time of his death in the road accident. As per claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 60,000 per annum. The Tribunal found that he was spending Rs. 3,000 per month on the household and in this way monthly dependency of the claimants was assessed at Rs. 2,500 or the annual dependency of Rs. 30,000. By applying the multiplier of 10 the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,00,000 to claimants- appellants besides other statutory benefits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The owner and the driver of the vehicle, viz., respondent Nos. 1 and 3, were held liable jointly and severally to make payment to the claimants. The insurance company, i.e., respondent No. 4 was absolved of its liability as the vehicle was found to have been insured in the name of Harbhajan Singh, respondent No. 2. Now the claimants have filed this appeal to challenge the award of the Tribunal.

(3.) It has been contended by Mr. L.M. Suri, learned counsel for the appellants, that the deceased was earning Rs. 60,000 per year or Rs. 5,000 per month in the year 1983 when the accident had occurred. He could not have been spending more than Rs. 1,000 on himself. In this way, learned counsel contended that the deceased was contributing Rs. 4,000 per month on his dependants. According to him, the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly dependency at Rs. 2,500 only. He further contended that the insurance company could not be absolved of its liability to indemnify the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that the insurance policy was in the name of Harbhajan Singh, respondent No. 2, while the ownership of the offending vehicle was in the name of Sandhu Transport Company, Amritsar, respondent No. 1. The learned counsel argued that Harbhajan Singh was the owner of the said transport company and if the insurance policy was in his name, that would not make any difference as both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are one and the same thing as respondent No. 1 was merely a juristic person.