Indarsen Narang and Others vs Kesaria Devi and Others

P.C. Pathak, J.—This appeal is by owner and Insurance Co. against award dated 3-10-80, in accident claims case No. 4 of 80 decided by the Claims Tribunal Satna.

The appellant No. 1 is owner of the offending truck No. 7075 MPA while appellant No. 2 is the insurer. On the date of incident i.e. 18-11-76 Jamna Prasad was the driver of this vehicle. He was taking the truck to village Gorsari Khurd. Deceased Ramkrupal and Jwala Prasad (AW 4) were on their respective cycle and proceeding on the road by their left. The truck in question proceeding in the same direction, dashed against the deceased who died on the spot since he came under the wheels, Jwala Prasad lodged a report of the incident in police who registered a case u/s 304A of IPC against the driver. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased. The submitted that the deceased was aged 27-28 years and was hale and hearty and but for the accident he would have lived up to 70-80 years. He used to earn Rs. 2000/- by working as chacker and Rs. 6000/- from agriculture which he used to do by taking lands on lease. The respondents claimed Rs. 2,55,000/-from the appellants.

The appellants and driver Jamna Prasad filed a joint written statement, denying all the allegations and submitted that the wheel of the truck separate from its body and hit the deceased. Thus, the appellants submitted, there was no negligence on the part of the driver. The driver died during the pendency of the petition before the Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the deceased was 28 years old and the annual dependency was Rs. 3000/-. According to him, the deceased would have lived up to the age of 65 years, meaning thereby that the legal representatives have been deprived of the annual dependency for the period of 37 years. After deducting amounts for lump sum payment and making other usual deductions, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondents with interest @ 6% from the date of award. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have filed the present appeal. In the memo of appeal, the driver was shown as appellant but latter his name was deleted, since he was already dead before the passing of the award by the Claims Tribunal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the deceased Ramkrupal died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. It may be mentioned here that on behalf of the appellants no witness was examined. There is only unrebutted testimony of the respondents'' witnesses Kamta Prasad (AW 1) and Jwala Prasad (AW 4). Both stated that the deceased was going on his cycle by the left side of the road. The offending truck came in an excessive speed from behind and hit him in such a manner that he came under the wheels and died on the spot. Although, in cross examination a suggestion was given that the wheels of the truck separated from the vehicle, both the witnesses emphatically denied the suggestion. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the appellants, the Tribunal had no option but to hold that the deceased died as a result of rash and negligent act of driving of the said truck.

It was next argued that the compensation awarded is excessive. On going through the award, I find, that the Tribunal adopted an unusual mode of calculating the compensation even though he had referred to Smt. Kamla Devi and Others Vs. Kishanchand and Another, and Chaurasia and Co. and Another Vs. Smt. Pramila Rao and Others, and four cases decided by this Court quoted in para 13 of the award. However, even on the calculating the compensation which could be awarded, I am of the opinion, that there is not much of difference in the amount so calculated. Under the circumstances, I would not like to interfere with the quantum merely because the manner of its calculation is not correct. Net result is nearly correct. As regards award of interest, the discretion rests with the Tribunal and nothing has been shown to me as to why the interest should not have been awarded.

It was not disputed before me, that the vehicle was insured by appellant No. 2 at the relevant time. In this view of the matter the liability to pay the compensation was rightly fastened on both the appellants jointly and severally.

There is no force in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants shall bear the cost of respondents. Counsel fee according to schedule, if certified.