UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. KANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited and the cross objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by the claimant-respondents No. 1 to 5.

(2.) THE claim made by the claimant-respondents emerges from an accident which have taken place on 15.9.1984. The deceased Kajod, aged 21 years and Bhanwar Lal, injured claimant-respondent along with sixteen other persons had gone to Delhi from Bharni to sell their vegetables in truck bearing registration No. RJX/858. The driver of the truck was Chunni Lal, one of the claimant- respondents. On 15.9.1984, after selling the vegetables they started back to their village Bharni in the same truck. On the way, when the truck reached ahead of Dharuhera, it turned turtled allegedly on account of the negligence of the driver, who was driving at a high speed. The occupants of the truck had sustained injuries. The deceased and other injured were admitted in the B.D.M. Hospital, Kot Putli, where Kajod succumbed to his injuries. The claimant- respondent Bhanwar Lal, aged 25 years had fractured his leg. On account of the death of Kajod, the claimant-respondents have claimed a sum of Rs. 5,05,600/- as compensation on account of his death claiming that they were all dependent upon him. The injured Bhanwar Lal, claimant-respondent has claimed Rs. 7,77,000/- as compensation on account of receiving grievous injuries and taking treatment for the same along with interest @ 12% per annum besides the costs. The appellant Insurance Company had taken the stand that truck No. RJX/858 had never been involved in the accident and neither Bhanwar Lal nor any other person were travelling in the truck, although the factum of insurance in respect of the offending truck with the appellant Insurance Company has not been denied. It has, however, been asserted that its liability could be fixed up to a limit of Rs. 50,000/-. It has also been pleaded that the deceased Kajod and injured Bhanwar Lal had no authority to travel in a goods carrier vehicle. The driver was alleged to have no valid licence or permit from the competent authority.

(3.) IN respect of issue, as to whether Chunni Lai had a valid licence at the time of accident, the tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that he had a valid licence for driving the heavy vehicles. The finding has been recorded on the basis of the statement made by Chunni Lal, RW-1, who had produced the licence in evidence and the failure of the Insurance Company to cross-examine him on the afore-mentioned issue.