Ramji Dass vs The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—This judgment will dispose of F.A.C. No. 709 & 710 of 1986 since uniform questions of law arise for determination.

The owner of truck bearing registration No. PUB-9977 has come up in appeal against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 64, 800/- each with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application to the legal representatives of deceased Bachittar Singh and Nachittar Singh respectively against him. Deceased Bachittar Singh and Nachittar Singh were members of a marriage party comprising of 30/35 persons. On April 6, 1981 at about 6.30 p.m., they were travelling in the truck bearing registration No. PUB-9977 from village Rajgarh Bhunder to Gidderbaha. The truck was being driven by one Malkiat Singh rashly, negligently and at a reckless speed. When the truck was near the place from where it was to take turn to the Bhatinda-Mansa road, it went out of control and dashed against two Kikkar trees. As a result of the impact of the accident, Bachittar Singh and Nachittar Singh fell down. The former succumbed to his injuries some time lateral the latter died on his way to the hospital. Bachittar Singh was a young man of 26 years at the lime of his death and was earning Rs. 500/- per mensum by doing agriculture labour and he used to hand over the entire money to her widow Basant Kaur for running the household. Nachittar Singh was employed in the local plant of National Fertilizers Ltd., and was earning Rs. 450/- per month. The claim petitions were contested by the Insurance Company, namely, the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company, Bathinda and the owner of the vehicle.

From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

As to how the accident has taken place, whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the driver, if so, its effect? OPA

If issue No. 1 is proved, then how much the compensation the claimants are entitled to from whom? OPA

Relief.

The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, gave a firm finding of fact that the accident took place on account of the mis-handling of the vehicle by the driver. Issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the claimants.

Under issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation as stated earlier from the owner of the vehicle, along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal held that although the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. but the passengers were carried in the vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Ex. RW3/4. The vehicle could not be used for conveyance of passengers for hire or reward and relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company v. Gurdav Kaur and Ors. 1967 A.C.J. 158, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was not liable and it is only the owner of the vehicle who is to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal found that even if the deceased are held to be working as labourers, they could earn a sum of Rs. 15/- daily as wages and on that basis, he determined the dependency of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem, or Rs. 3, 600/- per annum and applying a multiplier of twelve, he allowed the compensation of Rs. 64, 800/- to each set of the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

The claimants have not challenged the award of the Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle has come up in appeal. In the grounds of appeal, the owner has attacked the finding of the Tribunal on both these issues and has also attacked that part of the award whereby liability for payment of entire amount of compensation has been fastened on him.

After having gone through the record, I find no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on evidence, found that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. In coming to this conclusion, he relied upon the testimony of A.Ws. Jugraj Singh, Major Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, who were members of the marriage party. They gave a vivid description of the manner in which the accident had taken place. Their evidence leaves no manner of doubt that the accident took place as a result of rash, negligent and reckless driving of the vehicle by the driver of the owner. On the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 64, 300/He determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 3, 600/- per annum and applying a multiplier of 12, the compensation was assessed. The compensation appears to be on the lower side. But in the absence of any appeal or cross objection from the claimants, the same cannot be interfered with. The vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms of insurance policy, which did not permit that passengers could be carried in the vehicle for hire or reward. On evidence, I cannot arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal. It is only the owner of the vehicle who is to be held liable for payment of the compensation amount.

There is no force in these appeals and the same are dismissed, but with no order as to costs.