JAY SINGH Vs. LAL MUNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24-3-1998 passed in M. A. No. 520 of 1991(R) : (reported in 1999 AIHC 2440), whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge of this Court alleged the appeal of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to the effect that its liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for payment of compensation and the cross-appeal by the claimant was allowed in part enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the claim petition and there is direction that the appellant-owner (respondent No. 2 therein) of the offending vehicle shall pay the balance sum of the awarded compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the claimant.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are as under :On 12-5-1987 Surendra Kumar Gupta (a contractor by profession), aged about 24 years, the son of the claimant (Lalmuni Devi), A.W. 5, boarded Amit Bus No. BPQ 9900 at Ramgarh within the district of Hazaribagh for Gaya, but on the National High Way around 5.15 p.m. near village Masipiri, within the Police Station, Sadar (Muffasil), District, Hazaribagh, the bus, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the bus driver, met with the accident in which Surendra Kumar Gupta sustained head injury and he died on the spot. Thereafter Hazaribagh Sadar (Muffasil) P. S. Case No. 5 of 1987 came to be instituted regarding the incident.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that Jay Singh (appellant herein) is the owner of Bus No. BPQ 9900. It is also an admitted fact that on the date of the incident, the bus was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Gaya Branch. Lalmuni Devi (Respondent No. 1 herein) brought Compensation (Claim Case No. 63 of 1987) under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Tribunal for compensation on the ground of death of her son Surendra Prasad Gupta. She claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,48,000/-.Jay Singh by filing written statement resisted the claim petition, contending, inter alia that the death of the deceased was due to an unknown Coach Bus, which was negligently driven and there was no liability on him to pay the compensation and that the income of the deceased, shown by the claimant was excessive.The Oriental Insurance Company too contested the claim and denied its responsibility in the written statement, mainly on the grounds that the vehicle in question was plying without permit and in the alternative its stand was that its liability was limited to the extent as laid down under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the said Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').