Ram Lal and Another vs Amar Jeet Singh and Others

Rajesh Tandon and B. S. Verma, JJ.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 2.12.1994 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardwar in Motor Accident Case No. 42 of 1990, Ram Lal and another v. Anil Kumar and 7 others, by which, the claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 63,000 along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum.

Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 3.4.1990 at about 11 a.m. Devi Dayal was going to Hardwar along with his advocate in Bus. No. H. R. 10525. The driver of the bus namely Harvansh Singh was driving the Bus very cautiously in moderate speed abiding by all the traffic rules. On 4.4.1990 at about 12-15 in the morning when the Bus reached near Village Majra, one truck trailer No. HRE 8133, which was coming from Hardwar and being driven rashly and negligently by Sri Anil Kumar its driver. In this truck a machine of B.H.E.L. was being carried out, some of the portion of that machine was coming out from both sides of the aforesaid truck. There being no indication, the aforesaid Truck Trailer driver hit the Bus from the side, due to which the bus got damaged and some of the passengers, who were sitting in the Bus died and some sustained grievous injuries due to impact on the bus. The deceased was also one of the persons, who died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Accident had occurred due to the negligence of Department of B.H.E.L. because there was no indication on the truck to make somebody aware that what type of material was being carried out in that truck.

According to the claimants, the deceased was a taxi driver and was drawing a sum of Rs. 2,200 from the Taxi UTL-5765. The deceased was 32 years. The grandfather of the deceased had died in the age of 90 and the claimant No. 1 the father of the deceased is likely to remain alive upto the age of 85 years.

Respondent No. 2, General Manager, Haryana Roadways Transport and respondent No. 3 State of Haryana have contested the case by filing written statement. They have stated that they are not liable to pay any compensation because the accident had occurred due to the negligence of B.H.E.L. and the driver of the aforesaid truck,

Respondent No. 1 ArnarJeet Singh, the owner of the Truck Trailer has stated that the aforesaid accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. H.R. 01-0525. The truck bearing No. HR-01-0525 was carrying out the machine of B.H.E.L. abiding by all the traffic-rules. It has also been stated that at the time of the accident, the aforesaid truck was insured with National Insurance Company. Hence, respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation. It has also come in the written statement of Sri Amarjeet Singh that the truck trailer was insured with the National Insurance Company and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation and if any liability comes, that will be of Insurance Company. Respondent No. 8, National Insurance Company has stated in its written statement that no accident had taken place by the Bus in question. Opposite party No. 4 Sri Harvansh Singh has stated in its written statement that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck Trailer No. HRE 8133, who hit the Bus, due to which many a passengers sitting in the Bus in question sustained injuries and the bus got badly damaged. Out of the total passengers, three died on the spot, Sri Harvansh Singh also sustained injuries.

On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues.

Issues No. 1 and 2 relates to the factum of accident as to whether the truck driver of the Truck No. HRE -8133 was driving the vehicle in question rashly and negligently.

Issues No. 3 and 4 is with regard to the liability of compensation and amount of compensation.

So far as the issues No. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck Trailer No. HRE-8133, the same was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. and as Such New India Assurance Company is wholly responsible to reimburse the loss suffered by the claimant.

So far as the issue No. 4 is concerned, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 2,200 per month as has been stated in the claim Detition and he was an unmarried man of 30 years and he used to drive taxi.

Taking into consideration the age of the claimants which comes between the age group of 60-65 years, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier of "4", which according to Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act is not appropriate. According to Schedule II of the M. V. Act for the age group of 6O-65, multiplier of "5" is provided.

It is proved that the deceased was a driver and was earning a sum of Rs. 2,200. After deducting one third of this amount for the own expense of the deceased, if he would have been alive, dependency of the claimants on the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 1,467 per month i.e., Rs. 17,604 per annum. After multiplying this amount with 5, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 88,020. Besides this the petitioner are entitled to get Rs. 10,000 for loss and affection and Rs. 15,000 for mental pain and agony.

Thus, the petitioners are entitled to get a total Rs. 1,13,020 or round upto Rs. 1,13,000 as compensation with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.