RUBI KUMARI Vs. BALAJEE ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the Court:- Heard the parties. Though service of notice upon the respondent no.1 is sufficient, no one turns up on behalf of him in spite of repeated calls hence this appeal is heard ex parte in respect of the respondent no.1.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dtd. 4/9/2013 passed by the 5th Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.99 of 2009 whereby and where under in a claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.4,46,550.00 and interest thereon @ 6% with effect from 19/6/2012 against the respondent no.2 and ordered that if the said amount is not paid within one month of the judgment, the order shall carry penal interest @ 9% till realization and directed the respondent no. 2 insurance company to pay the said amount of compensation to the claimants.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the claimants -appellant nos. 1 to 4 are the dependents of the deceased -Ravi Kumar Singh @ Daya Singh a professional driver, who while returning from Ranchi by a Tata Sumo Vehicle belonging to his employer was dashed by the offending truck coming from the opposite side while the truck was being rashly and negligently driven and the deceased sustained serious and multiple injuries in the said motor vehicle accident and succumbed to his injuries on the spot itself. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that the deceased was aged about 29 years and was earning Rs.6,000.00 per month as salary and in addition to that, he was getting Rs.75.00 per day for food and maintenance allowance etc. The learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal framed the single issue as to whether, the claimants are entitled to get compensation, if so, then to what extent and from which of the opposite party. The learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence in the record held that though there is evidence in the record that the deceased was getting Rs.6,000.00 per month as salary from his employer but observed that a professional driver is expected to get Rs.5,000.00 per month in total in the year 2009 and assessed his income as Rs.5,000.00 per month and further observed that since the owner and insurer of the Tata Sumo Vehicle have not been brought into picture, hence the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal held that the insurer of the truck shall be liable to indemnify 65% of the liability.