Durgesh Aggarwal and Another vs Duni Chand and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal on behalf of the claimants is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, (hereinafter called ''the Tribunal'') dated April 11, 1983 whereby a sum of Rs. 48,000/- was awarded as compensation.

In the accident on April 16, 1980 at 7 a.m. between the truck driven by Mahender Singh and owned by Duni Chand and the car driven by Suresh Aggarwal and owned by him, he and his wife Meera died. The claim petition was filed by their son Durgesh Aggarwal and daughter Geetika Aggarwal, both minors, through their maternal grandfather Lakshmi Narain Mittal, as their next friend. According to the claimants, the truck was being driven by Mahender Singh in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high and reckless speed. The truck driver suddenly turned it towards the right without giving any horn and without giving any prior signal. Suresh Aggarwal while driving the car was blowing its horn and it was on the extreme left side of the road. But the truck driver could not control it and there was a collision between the car and the truck. Suresh Aggarwal died on the spot and Meera died soon after reaching the hospital. Both the said two minor claimants also received injuries as they were also travelling along with their parents in the car. The truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, while the car was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Both the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-.

Another claim petition was filed by Rai AmarNath Aggarwal and Madhuri, daughter of Rai Amar Nath Aggarwal, who were also travelling in the ill-fated par and were injured. Since Rai AmarNath Aggarwal died during the pendency of the claim petition and Madhuri was not proved to have sustained any injuries on her person in the accident, their claim petition was dismissed.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Respondents, it was denied that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the truck by Mahender Singh. The version set up by them was that when the truck reached the intersection of bypass of Model Town at about 9 a.m. on April 16, 1980, the driver slowed down the truck, blew the horn, put his right hand out and gave the electrical signal to show his intention to turn towards the right side of the road leading to Model Town, suddenly car No. USA 4455 came from behind and struck against the truck. In order to avoid the accident, the truck driver had turned it towards the left side, but the car struck its central right side with the right front side of the truck. Due to the impact, both the vehicles went on the right side of the road. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the liability of Respondent No. 3 is limited to Rs. 50,000/-?

(2) Whether car No. USA 4455 was insured with Respondent No. 4 on the date of accident. If not, its effect?

(3) Whether Madhuri was ''third party'' so as to make the insurance company Respondent No. 4 liable to satisfy the claim?

(4) Whether the accident in question was caused by rash or negligent driving of truck No. HRC 5833 by Respondent No. 2 resulting in death of Suresh Aggarwal and his wife and injuries to his two children Durgesh and Geetika and his sister Madhuri, as alleged?

(5) Whether the accident in question occurred as a result of rash or negligent driving of the car, USA 4455, by the driver? If not, its effect?

(6) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the Petitioners or any of them entitled and against whom?

(7) Whether a joint claim petition in respect of death of Suresh Aggarwal and his wife on one hand and in respect of injuries to Rai Amar Nath and his daughter Madhuri on the other hand, is maintainable? If not, its effect?

Relevant issues for the purposes of this appeal are issue Nos. 4 and 5. Under those issues, the tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck No. HRC 5833, driven by Mahender Singh which was the immediate cause of death of Suresh Aggarwal and his wife Meera. It was also found that since no evidence had been led to show that the injuries were caused to Durgesh Aggarwal and Geetika Aggarwal, (Sic.) no fault could be found with the driver of the car. Under issue No. 6, the Tribunal found that the income of Suresh Aggarwal was Rs. 500/- per month and thus dependency was determined at Rs. 250/- per month. By applying a multiplier of 16 (sixteen) a sum of Rs. 48,000/- was awarded as compensation. The only dispute in this appeal is as to the amount of compensation.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that from the evidence on the record, it has been amply proved that the deceased Suresh Aggarwal in addition to the salary of Rs. 500/- per month as the Supervisor of a transport company at Agra, was also doing the business of commission agent, the earnings of which the Tribunal failed to take into consideration. Moreover, the income which Meera was earning by running a school in order to supplement the family income has also not been taken into consideration. Besides, no amount has been allowed by way of compensation on account of the loss caused to the car owned by Suresh Aggarwal. Thus, argued the learned Counsel the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal was wholly inadequate.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

Apart from the income of Rs. 500/- per month which the deceased Suresh Aggarwal was earning as a Supervisor in the Bansal Transport Company, he was also doing some job on commission basis with India Castings, Agra. Laxmi Narain Mittal, PW 6, has categorically stated that his son-in-law Suresh Aggarwal was a Supervisor in Bansal Transport Company, Agra, and that he was getting a salary of Rs. 500/- per month. Besides, he was also doing some job on commission basis with India Castings, Agra. According to him, in all, he was earning Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. He also stated that the total expenditure incurred for repairing the car was Rs. 25,000/-. The car was owned by Suresh Aggarwal, as per copy of the registration book, Exh. PW 6/5. Rajinder Kumar, PW 7, who was also working in the Bansal Transport Company, stated that the deceased Suresh Aggarwal was getting a salary of Rs. 500/- per month and that he was also working on commission basis with someone else as he had been informed. Bijonder Kumar Aggarwal, PW 8, who was employed in the India Castings Company as Manager Accounts, stated that he had brought the record. As per record, a sum of Rs. 10,590/- was paid by the employer to Laxmi Narain Mittal, PW 6 (the father-in-law of the deceased Suresh Aggarwal and now the guardian of the minor claimants) on May 7, 1980, as the commission charges for the work done by Suresh Aggarwal on behalf of the said company. The claimant, Durgesh Aggarwal, appeared as PW 5. He stated that his mother Meera used to teach children at their house. She did not go out for work. Madhuri, the sister of deceased Suresh Aggarwal, appeared as PW4. She also stated in her cross-examination that her brother (Suresh Aggarwal deceased) used to obtain goods from India Castings for supply to the customers by charging commission. In view of this overwhelming evidence, it could not be held that the income of Rs. 500/- which the deceased Suresh Aggarwal was getting from his employer was his only income. In this unfortunate incident, both the claimants, who are minors, have lost their parents. Thus, from the evidence on the record, it can be safely concluded that the deceased was paying Rs. 700/- per month towards his family for the maintenance of the children. That being so, their annual dependency comes to Rs. 8,400/-. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal applied a multiplier of sixteen. In this way, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,34,400/-. The approach of the Tribunal in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 500/- per month and annual dependency of the claimants to be Rs. 3,000/- was wrong and wholly inadequate. The statements of the witnesses, referred to above, were not dealt with by the Tribunal.

Apart from the above amount, the claimants are also entitled for the repairs to the car as it was owned by Suresh Aggarwal, deceased, as per copy of the registration book, PW 6/5. Though in the claim petition a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been claimed on that account, but after a thoughtful consideration, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 10,000/-would meet the ends of justice on this account, as the car was totally smashed in the accident. Thus, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,44,400/-. The claimants will be entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent, instead of 6 per cent per annum as allowed by the Tribunal, from the date of the application till realisation. The driver and owner of the offending truck as well as the Respondent insurance company (Respondent No. 3) will be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the said amount. As per the terms of the insurance policy, the liability of the insurance company will be Rs. 50,000/-to each of the claimants. Cross-objections filed on behalf of the Respondents stand dismissed with no order as to costs.