Delhi High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sonmati And Ors. on 23 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: I(2005)ACC17, 2006ACJ1268, 66(2004)DLT115, (2005)139PLR12
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.5.1999 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Suit No.8/98 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,32,000/- together with interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal are as follows:-
"..... the case of the petitioners is that the deceased Shri Brahma Nand was a vegetable seller. In 25.12.92 in the morning the deceased was going to Azadpur Subzi Mandi in Tempo No.DEL-6374. At about 6.10. A.M., when the tempo reached near Maya Puri Chowk at the Ring Road, respondent No.1, who was driving the tempo lost control and the tempo over turned. The tempo was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased received fatal injuries in the accident.
The deceased used to buy fruits and vegetables from Subzi Mandi Azadpur and used to sell the same in retail at Barar Square in Delhi Cantt. and used to earn Rs.100-125 per day.
The deceased is survived by his wife, two minor sons and both the parents who are all petitioners in this case.
The deceased was 35 years old at the time of his death. The petitioners have claimed a lump sum compensation of Rs.7 lacs.
The respondent no.1 is the driver and respondent no.2 is the insurance company. Respondent no.1 and 2 are exparte. Only respondent no.3 has contested the petition. However, the Insurance Company has admitted the factum of insurance of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. It has been further averred in the written statement that the Insurance Company is not liable because the deceased was traveling in the vehicle as owner of the goods.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my ld.Predecessor:-
1. Whether the deceased received fatal injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No.DBL-6374 by respondent No.1?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief."
3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was traveling in the tempo not for reward and he is an unauthorized passenger. With the assistance of counsel, I have gone through the material on record. It appears to me that the Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of PW-1, Ram Shanker who was a co-passenger and a co-vegetable seller in the vehicle that met with the accident. The Tribunal has also noted as follows:-
"It is in evidence that the deceased was a vegetable seller and he Along with his co-vegetable sellers was going to Azadpur Subzi Mandi in the tempo in question for buying vegetables. That is to say, the deceased and his colleagues had hired this tempo for bringing vegetable in it. Therefore, the deceased and his colleagues were required to travel back with the goods for their safety in the vehicle. Therefore, in view of Hari Shanker Tewari's case (Supra) it should be deemed that the deceased and his colleagues, the hirers, were carried in the vehicle for reward and, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk of these hirers."
4. Once a finding has been returned that the deceased was not unauthorized and there is a statement of RW-1 to the effect that he hired the tempo to take them to Azadpur Mandi for the purpose of buying vegetables and that this tempo was to be used for transportation of the same, it cannot be said that the passenger was unauthorized. This is the only issue raised before me and the Tribunal has dealt with the same. In that view of the matter, I find no ground to interfere with the judgment under challenge.
5. FAO 396/1999 is dismissed.