VIMAL DEVI Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals raise common questions of law and facts and are directed against common judgment and award dated 26.6.1993 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 including interest in favour of claimants-appellants herein in S.B.C.M.A. No. 337 of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') and against C.S. Rathore and Hari Singh owner and driver of the offending bus No. RNQ 1839 (appellants in S.B.C.M.A. No. 374 of 1993) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short 'insurance company'). However, liability of insurance company was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the claimants preferred the appeal (S.B.C.M.A. No. 337 of 1993) seeking enhancement of the compensation. The owner and driver also preferred appeal challenging the award impugned.

(2.) Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these appeals are that on 8.12.1988 at about 8 a.m. Srikishan Vyas was proceeding towards Barqatullah Khan Stadium on the road leading to Geeta Bhawan. He was walking on left side of the road, at that relevant time a minibus bearing No. RNQ 1839 came from behind and hit him. Due to hitting from behind Srikishan Vyas was thrown about 6 to 7 feet away. Due to this accident he sustained head injuries and became unconscious. He was taken to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital for treatment. Despite efforts made by the doctors his life could not be saved and ultimately on the next day, i.e., on 9.12.1988, he succumbed to the injuries. It was averred that the said bus was driven by its driver Hari Singh rashly and negligently and was owned by C.S. Rathore (appellants in S.B.C.M.A. No. 374 of 1993) and insured with insurance company. A claim petition seeking compensation was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 5,93,240. Notices were served on the owner, driver and the insurance company. Despite notice the driver of the bus did not appear and he was proceeded ex pane. However, the owner C.S. Rathore and the insurance company have filed their respective written statement. On pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as six issues. The claimants produced PW 1 Vimal Devi, PW 2 Dr. Tara Chand, PW 3 Amar Dutt Vyas, PW 4 Roopraj Vyas and PW 5 Ashwini Kumar. In defence DW 1 Shankar Singh was produced by owner of the offending bus. The insurance company did not lead any evidence.

(3.) On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the said accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and accordingly issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants therein. Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were also decided in favour of the claimants and against the non-applicants therein. Findings on issue Nos. 4 and 5 have not been challenged. While deciding issue No. 3, which relates to assessment of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal computed the compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to which a sum of Rs. 5,000 was added as consolidated interest and accordingly, award of Rs. 1,05,000 was passed in favour of the claimants. However, the Tribunal held that the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000.