KRISHNA DEVI Vs. HARDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that Prem Nath and Pawan Kumar, who were travelling in truck No. HRH 5995 driven by one Jasbir Singh as owners of goods being transported in the said truck were killed in an accident that took place on 17.3.1980 at 1.30 a.m. near Village Chikanwas, Hisar-Sirsa road. The other vehicle involved in the accident was truck No. PNO-1537 which was loaded with cotton bales and was driven by Hukam Chand. As a result of collision, truck No. HRH-5995 turned turtle and caught fire resulting in the death of the owners of the goods. Surinder son of the owner of truck No.HRH-5995 and driver of truck No. PNO-1537 were also killed in the accident. Smt. Krishna Devi and other heirs of late Shri Prem Nath filed petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for award of compensation. A similar petition was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of late Shri Pawan Kumar and his heirs. The claimants limited their claim to Rs. 40,000/- because of their inability to pay ad valorem court fee. The Insurance Company, the owners and the drivers of the two trucks were impleaded as party respondents by the claimants. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar clubbed the two cases and decided them by one judgment dated 31.10.1983. The Tribunal held the drivers of both the trucks guilty of rash and contributory negligent driving (70% qua driver of truck No. HRH-5995 and 30% of the driver of truck No. PNO-1537). On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation payable to the claimants as Rs. 60,000/- in each case but restricted the award to Rs. 40,000/- in view of the prayer made in the claim petitions. The Tribunal also held the Insurance Company of truck No. HRH-5995 liable to pay compensation. The operative part of the award, passed by the Tribunal reads as under:-

(2.) The New India Assurance Company Limited filed F.A.O. No. 458 and 459 of 1984 against the award passed by the Tribunal in which the claimants, Owners of the trucks and insurer of truck No. PNO-1587 were impleaded as party respondents. On receipt of notice of the appeal, the claimants (appellants herein) filed separate cross objections dated 28.9.1985 under Order XLT, Rule 22 for enhancement of compensation and award of interest @18% from the date of accident. They also filed separate applications dated 13.11.1985 under Order VI, Rule 17 for grant of leave to amend the claim petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and dismissed the cross objections as well as the amendment applications filed by the claimants.

(3.) Shri M.S. Ratta assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by arguing that rejection of amendment application filed by the claimants-appellants is per se erroneous because the learned Single Judge failed to apply the basic principles which should guide the Court while deciding an application for amendment. Shri Ratta relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Nanduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimhachari and Ors. v. Sri Agastheswaraswamivaru, A.LJl. 1960 S.C. 622 and Harcharan v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 43. He then argued that the main judgment is liable to be declared erroneous because the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have failed to keep in mind the settled principle of law that interest is payable atleast @12% per annum from the date of application. He relied on Lachhman Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors., (1979)81 P.L.R. 1; General Manager, Kerala, State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 1 (S.C); Smt. Sarla Dixit and Anr. v. Balwant Yadav and Ors., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1274. Shri Ratta also, questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment by arguing that the cross objections filed by the claimants" have not been dealt with and decided in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court and the various High Courts. He invited our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Panna Lal v. State of Bombay and Ors., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1516; Koksingh v. Smt. Deokabai, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 634; Vadlamudi Venkateswarlu and Anr. v. Ravipati Ramamma and Anr., A.I.R. 1950 Madras 379; Kudapa Subbanna v. Chitturi Sebbanna and Ors., A.I.R. .1962 Andhra Pradesh 500; National Insurance Co. Baroda v. Diwaliben and Ors., A.I.R. 1982 Gujarat 145 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tulsi Devi and Ors., 1988 Accidents Claims Journal 962. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment under appeal and argued that the application for amendment filed by the claimants have been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. They also argued that cross objections filed by the claimants were not maintainable under Order XLT, Rule 22. Shri Manmohan Singh invited our attention to following decisions: