NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals arise out of one and the same accident, which occurred at 8.00 p.m. on 31.1.87 involving truck No. HPS 7357 in which the respective victims were said to have been travelling and, therefore, are taken up for consideration together. The respondents are also one and the same and that is how the learned counsel appearing on either side came to make common submissions. It will be useful to give certain facts, which are common for both the cases.

(2.) So far as F.A.O. No. 46 of 1991 is concerned, the same has been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shimla on 3.12.1990 in Case No. 57-S/2 of 1987 on a claim petition filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by son and a daughter both majors and a minor son of late Mohan Lai, whereunder the Tribunal below awarded a total sum of Rs. 91,400 in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company, with a further direction that all the claimants will share the amount equally. The case of the claimants-respondents herein before the Tribunal below is that the truck in question involved in the accident was owned by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the claim petition, that when the accident occurred at Meenus Dhank on Paonta Road in Chopal, deceased Mohan Lai, who was working as munshi with respondent Nos. 1 to 6 before the Tribunal below and was entrusted with the vehicle in question to manage the business affairs travelling in the vehicle, rolled down from the Dhank, noticed above, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver and as a consequence whereof the said Mohan Lai died. It was also stated that the driver of the truck was carrying food grains, etc., which were being transported and the deceased was entrusted with the articles, which were so loaded in the above truck to deliver them safe at its destination. It was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 as wages, besides earning to the tune of Rs. 800 per month from agricultural work. On that basis they claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation on account of the untimely death of Mohan Lai. At the time of filing of the claim petition, the respondent late Jatinder Chauhan, the husband of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the other respondents was alive. The respondent was said to have admitted in his reply that the deceased Mohan Lal was working as munshi and that his income was shown only as Rs. 1,200 and, therefore, the claim was exaggerated and excessive. The vehi- cle was said to have been insured with the appellant insurance company. The insur- ance company also appears to have filed a reply taking an objection that the deceased was neither covered under the policy of the insurance in question nor required to be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the compensation. It was also alleged by the insurance company that unauthorised passengers while travelling illegally in the truck, which is not meant for carrying passengers are not covered under the policy of the insurance, in view of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that at any rate the claim is highly exaggerated and excessive. The Tribunal below after considering the materials on record held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver and fixed the liability for compensation ultimately awarded against the insurance company. The Tribunal below also held that the deceased Mohan Lal was not only employed as munshi under the owner of the truck but he was deputed by the owner for delivering the goods to its destination and so long as the deceased was on the insured vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of his contract of employment, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below accepted the evidence let in on the side of the respondents to arrive at the conclusion that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,200 and that the loss suffered by the claimants on account of the death of the deceased was to the tune of Rs. 600 per month and applying a multiplier of 12, keeping in view the age of the deceased, the compensation was arrived at Rs. 86,400 and adding to the same a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for love and affection and towards conventional charges, the total amount to be awarded was arrived at Rs. 91,400. Aggrieved, the insurance company has filed the above appeal.

(3.) So far as F.A.O. No. 7 of 1992 is concerned, the claimants are the widow, minor children of late Bhim Singh, father, brother and minor sister. Late Bhim Singh was said to be the Secretary of Chandna Dhar Multipurposes Co-operative Society, Tehsil Chopal, who was also said to be travelling in the truck coming from Nerva to Randikibhir having been said to have been deputed to accompany the goods belonging to the Society loaded in the truck in his capacity as the Secretary. The claimants in this case also asserted that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver named Chandu Ram resulting in the accident on account of the same having rolled down into a gorge about 1000 feet down from the road head. The respondents before the Tribunal below in this case are also the same as in the other case except they had different number of array of parties. It is claimed that all the occupants, namely, Bhim Singh said to be accompanying the goods, the driver Chandu Ram and all other occupants died on the spot and the goods like levy sugar, wheat, rapeseed oil, palm oil, flour and controlled rate cloth, etc., of the Society were said to have been destroyed. Since the owner of the vehicle expired as in the other case during the proceedings, his legal representatives were brought on record in addition to the appellant insurance company, which was also impleaded as a party respondent before the Tribunal below. The respondent No. 1 owner, who was alive when the case was filed appears to have resisted the petition by a blanket and plain denial of the claims made. So far as the insurance company is concerned, they not only challenged the maintainability of the claim but also contended that late Bhim Singh was an unauthorised passenger in the truck and as such the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation due to his death involving the vehicle, in which he was travelling. This claim petition, which was filed by the legal representatives of late Bhim Singh as M.A.C. No. 4-S/2 of 1988 was tried by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Shimla and was accordingly decided by the said Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal below apart from fixing the responsibility for the accident on the driver and the liability on the respondents came to the conclusion that the total gross earning of the deceased can be fixed at Rs. 1,000 per month from all the sources and arrived at annual loss of dependency at Rs. 4,800 (Rs. 400 per month x 12). Applying a multiplier of 20, the total amount of loss was fixed at Rs. 96,000. In addition thereto, loss of a living being was fixed at Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 3,000 towards the expenses for the post-death ceremonies and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost and thus making a grand total of Rs. 1,50,000. This compensation awarded was apportioned among the claimants at Rs. 40,000 to the widow, Rs. 20,000 each to the children of the deceased and Rs. 10,000 each to the father, brother and minor sister. It was held that the insurance company will pay the amount to the claimants. For arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal below also overruled the objection of the insurance company and came to the conclusion that late Bhim Singh being the Secretary of the Society was not an unauthorised passenger but shall be deemed to be a passenger for reward and pecuniary benefit to the owner of the truck. It was also observed that he was not separable from the goods he had booked for the owner for further safe, sure and certain transportation without impairing the mercantile value of the goods to its destination and that he had a legal right also to accompany the goods. Aggrieved, the insurance company has filed the above appeal.