RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. SOMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (e) are the legal representatives of original appellant No. 1, namely, Ram Nath, who died during the pendency of the appeal. He was owner and appellant No. 2, who is his son, was the driver of tractor No. HPG 616. Respondent-claimant No. 1 is the widow and respondent-claimant No. 2 is the minor son of deceased Tek Singh who succumbed to the injuries received by him on 12.4.1990 in the accident of tractor No. HPG 616. Their case has been that on the day of accident Tek Singh and his brother Kuldip Singh, PW 4, were standing at Basal Puli on Dera Baba Rudru-Nari Road waiting for the bus for village Nari. Seeing the tractor in question, deceased gave signal for lift and in return got struck and fell on the road at a distance of 5-7 feet and sustained number of injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by appellant No. 2. Thereafter, he was brought to the hospital at Una where he breathed his last at 9.00 p.m.

(2.) The respondents-claimants filed the claim petition which was allowed by the impugned award dated 19.10.1992 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una. The Tribunal on the apprecia tion of evidence on record has come to the conclusion that fatal injuries inflicted on the person of deceased Tek Singh were caused when he was struck by the tractor in question which was being driven rashly and negligently by appellant No. 2. Taking into consideration that deceased Tek Singh was matriculate and a skilled worker having diploma of machinist, his income was assessed at Rs. 1,500 and the dependency was worked out to be at Rs. 900 per month or Rs. 10,800 per year. Taking age of deceased Tek Singh as 26 years and the age of his widow as 24 years, multiplier of 20 has been applied and loss of income is determined at Rs. 2,16,000 to which an amount of Rs. 5,000 each has been added as loss of consortium and shortening of life. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 2,26,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 30.6.1990 to the date of payment has been awarded. The amount has been apportioned as under: <FRM> Respondent-claimant No. 1, widow : Rs. 1,00,000 Respondent-claimant No. 2, minor son : Rs. 1,26,000 </FRM> While apportioning the lesser sum to the widow the Tribunal has taken into consideration the possibility of her contracting second marriage. The Tribunal has held original appellant No. 1, Ram Nath and appellant No. 2, the owner and driver of the tractor, respectively, liable to pay the award amount jointly and severally absolving respondent No. 3 insurance company and respondent No. 4 Karam Chand, the original owner of the tractor. On the basis of evidence on record it is held by the Tribunal that the tractor in question was not insured with the insurance company at the time of accident on 12.4.90 as the cover note pertaining to the tractor in question Exh. R-l, carbon copy of which is Exh. R-3/2, was issued on 16.4.1990 and not on 6.4.90 and that too in the name of Karam Chand, respondent No. 4, whereas the tractor stood sold to appellant No. 1 as far back as on 26.7.88. As such Karam Chand, respondent No. 4, has not been held liable to pay or share the award amount. These findings have not been assailed in the present appeal.

(3.) The challenge in the present appeal is to the findings of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence as well as quantum of compensation. On the other hand, respondents-claimants have filed Cross-objection No. 278 of 1993 for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. The appellants have also moved an application (C.M.P. No. 362 of 1993) under Order 41, rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for adducing additional evidence to bring on record the documents as stated therein, alleging that these will enable this court to come to a right conclusion. The respondents-claimants have opposed this application by filing reply alleging that these documents were very much within the knowledge of the appellants but they have failed to produce the same before the Tribunal after exercising due diligence. The authenticity and genuineness of these documents has also been denied. By another application (C.M.P. No. 316 of 1996) appellants have brought on record the factum of remarriage of respondent-claimant No. 1 Soma Devi with younger brother of her deceased husband Tek Singh on 15.1.1993, which has been admitted in the reply filed on behalf of respondent-claimant Soma Devi who has further asserted that it would not have any effect on her right to get the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal.