TARA CHAND Vs. CHOKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals and the cross-objections have been filed against the award dated 14th September, 1982 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, allowing a compensation of Rs. 9,720/- to the claimants in each of the claim petitions.

(2.) THE accident took place on 15th January, 1974, at Pratapgarh. In the accident the truck No. RJH 850 belonging to Tara Chand and Jayanti Lal was involved. It was being driven by Bardhi Chand driver. Two persons, namely, Onkar and Babu were killed in the accident. They had been employed as labourers on the truck. The truck was used for loading and unloading of stones. To bring stones the truck was taken on kacha road, where it overturned, resulting in the death of Onkar and Babu. Two claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur. Claim Petition No. 14 of 1974, renumbered as 141 of 1978, related to the claim for compensation for the death of Onkar. It was filed by Kalu, father of the deceased, Chokali mother, Sita Bai widow, Puniya brother and Kamli sister. The other claim petition, being No. 15 of 1974, renumbered as 142 of 1978, was for compensation on account of the death of Babu. It was filed by Galla, father of the deceased, Panudi mother, Sita Ram, Gopal, Ram Chand brothers and Kali sister. Shortly stated, the facts, as alleged in the claim petition, were that the truck in which the deceased had been employed as labourers was driven by Bardhi Chand. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was also impleaded as a party, as it was alleged that the truck was insured with that company.

(3.) THE claim was contested by the owners and the company. It was pleaded by the owners that the truck on the date of the accident was taken on hire by Galla s/o Rakiya for carrying stones. The labourers. Onkar and Babu, and also the driver, Bardhi Chand, were employed by him. The case of the insurance company was that the truck was insured on 15th January, 1974 itself but it was insured after the accident, by concealing material facts and, therefore, the company was not liable to pay compensation under the said policy.