Om Parkash vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here pertains to the Award of compensation to the widow and children of Balbir Singh deceased, who was killed when the truck HRP1351 he was travelling in, suddenly went off the road and fell into a pit as also to the compensation awarded to Dharam Pal the son of the said Balbir Singh deceased for the injuries sustained by him in this accident. He too was on the truck with his father at that time. This happened on the Delhi-Mathura road near the bye-pass road Palwal, during night time on February 6,1981.

It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck-driver. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- as claimed, was awarded to the claimants for the death of Balbir Singh deceased while Rs. 1200/- were awarded to Dharam Pal for the injuries sustained by him in this accident.

The liability for the compensation awarded to the claimant was fastened upon Om Parkash the driver and owner of the truck. The Insurance Company with which the truck had been insured was, however, absolved of liability following the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurdev Kaur and Ors.1967 P.L.R. 461, It is this part of the Award that the truck-owner Om Parkash now seeks to challenge in appeal, by adverting to Tire Vanguard Insurance Ltd. v. Chinnamal and Ors 1969 A.C.J. 226 and The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganchi Ramanlal Kantilal and Ors.1979 A.C.J. 65.

It will be seen that the case here is of the owner of goods being carried in a truck taking his goods. It was in dealing with precisely such a situation that the Full Bench of our Court in Gurdev Kaur and others'' case (supra) held that the death of the owner of the goods travelling as passenger on the truck in which the goods were carried, does not render the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. This judgment was later followed in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Devi and Ors.1986 (2) P.L.R. 106.

In the face of the clear and unambiguous law laid down by the Full Bench in Gurdev Kaur and Ors. case (supra), no exception can indeed be taken to the Insurance Company haying been absolved of liability for this accident. The two judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant, namely. The Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chinnamal and Ors. 1969 ACJ 226 and; The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ganchi Ramanlal Kantilal and Ors. 1979 ACJ 65 (supra) are both distinguishable on facts, in that, neither of them was case of the owner of the goods being carried in the truck taking the goods. Even otherwise, with respect, the judgment of our Full Bench must prevail.

The claimants, on their part have filed cross-objections accompanied by an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the claim application to claim enhanced compensation. In dealing with this matter, it deserves note that the Award here was made as far back as December 16,1983. It was oh February 24,1984 that the present appeal was filed and it was admitted to hearing in March 1984. The cross-objections were not filed till August 30,1988 and it was on this date that the application for amendment of the claim application too was filed. The patent delay in seeking this amendment was sought to be accounted for on the plea that the claimants were unable to pay court-fee on the amount exceeding Rs. 40,000/- and now that the requirement of paying court-fee had been quashed, they were seeking permission for amendment of the claim application. This ground cannot stand scrutiny as it is since December 18,1984 that ad valorem court-fee is no longer payable on the amount claimed as compensation in such proceedings.

Delay on the part of the claimants in seeking amendment of the claim application is thus writ large and there is no satisfactory explanation to account for it In the circumstances, it would clearly not be in the interests of justice to allow such ac application at this belated stage. It is accordingly hereby declined.

The Tribunal, however, fell in error in not awarding the appropriate rate of interest on the amount awarded. Accordingly the interest on the compensation awarded is hereby enhanced to 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application to the date of the payment of the amount awarded.

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed while the cross-objections are accepted to the extent indicated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.