SOHAN LAL Vs. FATTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the non-claimant- respondent No. 2 (owner of the offending truck No. RJB 617) against the judgment and award dated 4.8.1993 passed by Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bans wara in M.A.C.T. Case No. 42 of 1988 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs, 1,40,000 in favour of the claimants.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that it is alleged that on 18.3.1988 at about 1.15 p.m., Bhodhar, non-claimant No. 1, was driving (ruck No. RJB 617 rashly and negligently at a high speed while going from Kushalgarh to Bada Dungra, on account of which the truck turned turtle. The accident took place at the chouraha of Jalampura Road. Meghji (deceased) along with three other labourers were sitting in the truck. They were said to be travelling as labourers on the truck. In accident all the labourers sustained grievous injuries on their person including Meghji, who was admitted in the hospital in serious condition but he died on 19.3.1988. At the time of accident the deceased was aged 30 years and he was only member in his family as bread-earner. He was doing work of hamal as well as agricultural. It was submitted that he was earning Rs. 1,200 per month, out of which he used to spend Rs. 200 per month on himself and rest of the amount of income he used to pay to the family for meeting the family expenses. Thus, after death of Meghji in accident, the family had been deprived from the said income, love and affection. The claimant No. 2 is minor daughter and she has been deprived from proper guardianship. Claimant No. 3 is the old father of the deceased, has been deprived from services of his son. In this way, claimants filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,70,000.

(3.) After service of notice, non-claimant No. 2 filed reply to the claim petition. In reply, all the averments made by claimants were denied. It was further submitted that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation from the answering non-claimant No. 2 as the said truck was insured with the respondent insurance company. If any liability arises, then the insurance company would be responsible for the same.