AJEET SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The brief facts of the case are that one Prem Kumar son of Oda Ram who was husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant No. 2 and son of claimant No. 3 died in accident with truck No. HYN-7941 which was owned by non-claimant No. 2 Ajit Singh and was being driven by non-claimant No. 1-Pyara Singh. At the time of filing of claim, claimants were not aware of the fact whether the truck is insured or not and if insured which is the Company and who insured the above truck. The claimants submitted that Prem Kumar was employed as driver and he was driving Jeep No. RRK 1457. On 28. 1. 1988 at about 10. 00 a. m. on the road from Hanumangarh to Ganganagar, deceased was going in the above jeep and a truck No. HYN 7941 came and hit the jeep of deceased-Prem Kumar and Prem Kumar died on spot. An FIR was lodged on 29. 1. 1988 by the owner of the truck. The claimants stated that Prem Kumar was getting Rs. 600/- per month by driving the above mentioned jeep and he was of the age of 30 years. According to claimants, in normal course of time, deceased would have earned more income, but because of this accident, he died which caused inter alia loss of income to the claimants. It is also submitted that at that time, father of deceased was of 65 years' of age and mother was 60 years' of age. Therefore, claimants claimed total Rs. 4,20,000/- from the non- claimants on account of loss of income which would have been received by the claimants. The claimants have also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental shock and because of loss of love and affection and by claiming other expenses, total amount claimed is Rs. 4,20,000/ -. It appears that there is some mistake in the entire claim as claimants claimed Rs. 4,20,000/-for deprivation of income of deceased and also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental shock and loss of love and affection, but claimed total Rs. 4,20,000/- only.

(2.) THE Tribunal issued notice to the respondents, owner of the vehicle as well as to the driver, but proceeded ex-parte as none of them appeared. THE learned Tribunal passed the ex-parte award on 28. 11. 1994 holding that driver of the truck was negligent in driving the truck and caused the accident. THE Tribunal while assessing the damages, held that though claimant has men-tioned in claim petition income of deceased Rs. 600/- only, but the Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased @ 900/- per month and held that 2/3 of above amount shall be utilised for the benefit of wife of deceased and his son as well as for mother and father, therefore, the claimants were deprived of Rs. 600 per month and determined 600 x 12 x 30 = 2,16,000/- and deducted 2/5 of the above amount and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,29,600/- on this count to the claimants and also awarded Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- on other count as mentioned in the above award dated 28. 11. 1994.

(3.) THE respondent-claimant also submitted cross-objection seeking en-hancement of claim. THE learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company submitted that respondent-Company was impleaded as party in the suit by order dated 1. 4. 1997 only and as per provisions of sub-cl. (5) of R. 10 of O. 1, proceedings against the respondent-Insurance Company shall be deemed to be from only on the service of summons and, therefore, there was no claim against the respondent-Company till summons were served upon the respondent-Com-pany after impleading respondent-Company and as per See. 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and corresponding See. 110 (cc) of the Act of 1939, there is specific provision that interest if is awarded, shall be from not earlier than the date making the claim, therefore, according to learned counsel for the respon-dent, award of interest cannot be levied against the respondent-Company and the award of interest for the period given in the award against the owner-appel-lant is just and proper.