LALI Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimants, inter alia seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) THE necessary facts are that on the fateful day the deceased Gola was travelling in the Truck No. RJB -6363 as a labourer. While the truck was going, the other truck No. GJ -17 T -3969 which was coming from towards Banswara dashed against the Truck No. 6363 on the culvert, as a result of which the deceased died. The deceased was claimed to be earning Rs. 2000/ - per month, by working as manual labourer, and by agriculture, and thus Rs. 8,40,000/ - have been claimed by way of loss of income. Other amounts have been claimed under different heads like mental pain and agony, loss of expectation of life, and so on, and a total sum of Rs. 15,62,000/ - has been claimed. The claim was constested.

(3.) WHILE deciding issue No. 1 it was found that no evidence has been led in rebuttal, and after appreciating the evidence it was found that the accident was result of negligent driving of drivers of both the trucks in which accident two persons being Gola and Kaliya died while Savita, Bhima, Senga and Duda received simple and grievous injuries. Deciding issue No. 2 in the claim of the appellants being Claim No. 65, it was found by the learned trial Court, that no reliable evidence has been led as to how many days a month the deceased used to work, and what was the nature of the work he was doing. However, it was considered that prevalent rate of wages during those days i.e. 1992 was Rs. 22/ - per day, and applying multiplier of 15 the compensation payable on that count was assessed at Rs. 79,200/ -. Then, regarding expenditure incurred in performance of last rites which was claimed at Rs. 20,000/ - has been awarded at Rs. 5,000/ -. Then, Rs. 10,000/ - has been awarded for loss of consortium. Deciding issue No. 3 it has been found that the insurer of truck No. 6363 is not liable as the cheque given for payment of insurance premium was dishonoured and intimation thereof was given by the insurer to the owner by registered post, and after receipt of that information the owner sent a money order for proportionate amount of premium for the period of 08.04.1992 to 24.04.1992, though subsequently this money order was also refused by the insurer. Thus, it was found that the risk was not covered, and finding that since insurer of truck No. 6363 is not liable, and since the defendant No. 5 happened to be insurer of both the trucks it was held that insurer would be liable to pay half of the amount, and rest half of the amount representing compensation payable by the driver and owner of the truck No. 6363 would be recoverable by the claimants from the owner and driver of said truck No. 6363.