Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Fire And General Insurance ... vs Sudha Rani And Ors. on 28 January, 1987
Equivalent citations: I(1988)ACC127
JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J.
1. One Gokaran, son of Ganga Prasad, aged about 20 years, was carrying on the family cultivation and was also working on the tube-well and flour mill of the family. The family owned 60 bighas of land, a tube-well and a flour mill. The father of Gokaran is an old man of 60 years and, therefore, on account of his old age he was not looking after the family business and the cultivation, which was being looked after by the deceased Gokaran. On 8-5-1977 at about 2.45 P.M. Gokaran was going from his village Awagarh on a bicycle. Truck No. U P.I. 5801 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Chandrapal, opposite party No. 2, and owned by Sardar Harnam Singh, the opposite party No. 1, came from behind at a high speed. The deceased was proceeding on his left hand side patri which was his correct side. The truck knocked down the deceased from behind and crushed him to death. The driver on seeking what had happened was callous enough to run away from the spot along vith the vehicle. One Keshave Dev lodged an F.I R. Large number of persons, namely Babu Ram, Netrapal, Gopal and several others saw the incident which took place near village Khusari on Lalesar-Awagarh-Etah.
2. It was contended that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 500/- and besides the petitioner (widow) the father, mother and two minor brothers of the deceased were also dependent upon him. The entire family has thus been left without means. An extra expenditure of at least Rs. ?00/- per month was also being borne by the family in engaging labour for doing the work which the deceased was doing in cultivation, tube-well and flour mill. As no other able bodied male member has been left in the family to look after these things, the income of the family has been reduced by at least Rs. 25,000/- per year. The petitioner is a young widow of the deceased and has suffered great mental shock and agony and has lost her only support and thus in all she has claimed a sum of Rs. 75,000/-.
3. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed a joint written statement admitting the fact that truck No. UPI 5801 was owned by opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 Chandapal was driver thereof, but it is said that Gokaran did not die due to the accident of this truck. This truck was insured with opposite party No. 3. It is contended that Gokaran was of a weak constitution and had no concern with the earnings of his father and was not an asset to the family. The claim was, therefore, challenged both on facts as well as on merits. It was also alleged that the amount of compensation has been exaggerated.
4. The Insurance Company filed a separate written statement taking the same defence which was taken by the owner and the driver, except for the fact that they admitted that the accident in question took place on 8-5 77 and vehicle No. U.P.I. 5801 was involved in that accident. They also asserted that the claim was exaggerated.
5. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner being widow of the deceased was entitled to file the petition Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; that the accident in question took place because of the rash and negligent driving by opposite party No. 2 Chandrapal of truck No. U.P.I. 5801 which was owned by opposite party No. 1; that the deceased was about 25 years of age at the time of accident, and that his health was perfectly good and he was not suffering from any illness. It was also found that a deduction out of the total amount of lump sum, at the rate of 25% has to be made and the total compensation which the learned Tribunal assessed was Rs. 54,000/-. On deduction of Rs. 13,500/- the amount of compensation was reduced to Rs. 40,000/- and to this amount it found the applicant entitled. It has also been held that Insurance Company will be liable to the extent of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Finally it has been held that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- should be awarded by way of compensation to Smt. Sudha Rani, widow of the deceased and the balance amount of Rs. 15000/- to the parents.
6. After hearing learned Counsel on both the sides, I am of the view that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding happening of this incident is perfectly justified from the evidence on record and it is established satisfactorily that the accident did take place because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Driver, which was owned by Sardar Harnam Singh, the appellant No. 2. The amount of Rs. 40,000/-, which has been assessed by the learned Tribunal, is also perfectly justified.
7. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondents but no specific point has been agitated for consideration of this Court and the only allegation made is that the Accidents Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim of the respondents to the extent of Rs. 500.00 (wrongly mentioned in place of Rs. 35,000/-).
8. After hearing learned Counsel on both the sides, I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that a total sum of Rs. 40,000/ was to be paid by way of compensation and out of that amount a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been rightly awarded to the widow and balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the parents of the deceased, namely Ganga Prasad and Smt. Kiran Devi.
9. In the result, both the appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed and the judgment and order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Etah (VIIth Additional District Judge, Etah), dated 29-5-1979 is upheld and confirmed.
10. The parties shall bear their own costs.