GOPAL GIRI Vs. ABDUL MAZID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25.08.2000, in early morning, at about 5.00 a.m., motor vehicle truck No. GJ-7-X-5464 at public road in district Panchmahal, struck a tree and as a result of injuries caused, driver died and appellant sustained grievous injuries.

(2.) CLAIMING compensation Rs.30,83,000/-, appellant injured averred that the vehicle is owned by R1, Bhanwar Lal driver and he respectively were employed as driver by the owner, injured appellant being second driver on wages Rs.4500/- per month. Describing that loading goods from Chittorgarh in the vehicle on 23.8.00, they headed for Mumbai and, on 25.08.2008, at about 5 O'clock in morning near Kalol district Panchmahal, driver Bhanwarlal, driving truck very fast, and in a rash and negligent manner, losing control, struck a tree, so vehicle fell in a sewerage line and Bhanwar Lal instantly died of the injuries, whereas appellant, permanently gravely injured disabled and for the incident, FIR No.183/2000 was registered. Stated that appellant sustained many grievous injuries and his right leg at knee had to be amputated during treatment and so far Rs.1,00,000/- expenses incurred and other lacks likely to be incurred. Stating theft and damages worth Rs.7,000/- and he, little above 21 years earning Rs.4500/- per month deprived of, anticipating earning upto age of 65 years. Estimated loss of earning about Rs. 23 lacs and Rs.5 lacs for pain, mental agony and deprivation of worldly pleasure and Rs.2 lacs of treatment expenses, claimed Rs.30,83,000/-. Appellant insurer, denying any liability, stated that driver was neither second driver on vehicle, nor employed in any way on the truck and he simply was a passenger and the accident only act of God, so insurance company not under any liability. Also stated person driving, did not possess valid license the expenses highly exaggerated and other claims being imaginary.

(3.) COPY of certificate of insurance is on record and per it, appears that the same is insured for employee also. Per Section 147, insurance, mandatorily for employee is upto the extent payable under workmen compensation's act. Though insurance may to this extent, but if higher the compensation, still payable by owner. Vehicle being driven on Highway, with and no other relevant happening going on extreme side, went down in some nala, resulting in death of driver itself very relevant and tend to show that accident occurred perhaps only due to fault of the driver. Copies of the FIR and other documents are also on record. Now considering quantum, as age was 21 years, taking all relevant elements together for estimating actual earning loss, here multiplier 17 or 18 is to be used.