RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. SUMAN LATA CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act'), against the award dated 21.10.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,59,200/ - in all and interest thereon.

(2.) AS per the facts mentioned in the memo of appeal, on 5.11.1978, deceased Anand Mohan along with his wife Suman Lata and his daughter and sons left Jaipur for Ajmer in a taxi car bearing registration No. RST 76, of which respondent No. 9, Asu Singh (since dead), was the driver. Sumitra Pandit, respondent No. 8, is the owner of the taxi car. When the taxi car came near Sri Nagar bypass, appellant's tractor bearing registration No. RJS 1372, which was being driven by Banshi Lai, respondent No. 14, turned towards Jaipur. According to the claimants, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7, the car was hit by the tractor on the back side, with the result that the driver of the car lost his control and it hit against a truck No. RRR 4197 which came to halt without giving any indication, as a result of which the taxi car overturned and Anand Mohan died on the spot. He was a Civil Maintenance Engineer and was aged 42 years and was drawing a sum of Rs. 26,966/ - per year. The claimants filed claim for an amount of Rs. 10,79,707/ -from the owners of the three vehicles and the insurance company with which these vehicles were insured. Sumitra Pandit, respondent No. 8, denied all the allegations for want of knowledge but admitted that she was the owner of the taxi car and that it was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and that she had given the said taxi car to Ravi Prakash Chaturvedi, one of his servants, for his personal use and the vehicle was not being driven as a taxi car. Asu Singh, driver of the taxi car, did not file any reply to the claim petition. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has filed a separate reply and admitted that the taxi car. was insured with the company and submitted that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent act of the truck driver and not of the taxi driver and the tractor driver was also not responsible for the accident and, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation and that compensation should be recovered from the owner of the truck, driver or the insurance company with which it was insured. Rajendra Kumar has admitted that he was the owner of the tractor No. RJS 1372 and that it was being driven by Banshi Lai, driver, at the time the accident took place and that it was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It has further been submitted that the accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor but the accident took place on account of negligence of the truck driver. Mamraj, truck driver and Nahar Singh, owner of the truck, did not file any reply to of rash the claim petition. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 13, has admitted in reply that truck No. RRR 4197 was insured with it and has further submitted that the truck was stationary at the time the taxi car and the tractor collided. It was after the accident that the car also struck the truck which was standing and since it was not a case of rash and negligent driving of the truck, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed the following issues: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) THE Tribunal, after examining the evidence led before it, came to the conclusion that the truck stopped suddenly and was standing on the highway on the left side covering 2 -4 feet of the main highway road and the truck driver had gone to have a cup of tea, and the taxi car and the tractor collided. After that only, it struck -the truck but if the truck had not been parked covering highway the accident could have been avoided. He has come to the conclusion that the taxi car which was being driven at a speed of 80 -85 km. per hour on the highway collided with the tractor coming from the side and entering the highway and that the accident could have been avoided if the driver of the taxi car was cautious. Ultimately, the Tribunal has held that drivers of the taxi car, the truck and the tractor were responsible for the accident and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of these three vehicles. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that all the respondents are severally and jointly responsible. Issue Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been decided against the respondents as no evidence was led on this count. On the point of quantum of compensation, it has come to the conclusion that the deceased Anand Mohan was born on 11.9.1935 and, therefore, was 43 years of age at the time of accident and was drawing a total salary of about Rs. 1,787.50 p.m. including basic pay, dearness allowance and bonus. Tribunal has not included the conveyance allowance and coal -field allowance as his income. The Tribunal also held that the deceased used to spend about '/3rd on himself and 2/3rds on his family and thus, he was spending Rs. 1,200 only on his family. Suman Lata was given service by the Steel Authority of India after six months of the death of deceased Anand Mohan and was drawing Rs. 540/ - per month including allowances. The age of retirement in the company was 58 years and the deceased would have served for nearly 15 years in the company. As such, the Tribunal has found that the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,200/ - x 12 x 15, i.e., Rs. 2,16,000/ -. The Tribunal further found that the deceased Anand Mohan would have lived at least up to 65 years and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,200 x 12 x 3 = Rs. 43,200/ -, and thus, the claimants were entitled to a total amount of Rs. 2,59,200/ -. After discussing the case -law, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with which the taxi car was insured is liable to pay only Rs. 10,000/ - per passenger of the taxi car and also Rs. 50,000/ - for the liability of the tractor. It has further been found by the Tribunal that United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the truck was insured is also liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. As such, finally, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,59,200/ - and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date the petition was filed till the date of the award and 12 per cent from the date of the award till the amount is paid. It is against this award dated 21.10.1986 that the present miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the owner of the tractor on 20.2.1987. It was admitted on 11.3.1987.