Shri K.K. Sharma vs Nirmal Singh and Others

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—This judgment of ours would dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 614 of 1986 and 617 of 1986. In order to understand the precise point involved herein, it is necessary to have a brief look at the facts of the case.

As many as 8 persons were travelling in a tractor-trolley No. HEY 779 when it met with an accident with Truck No. HYE 2282. The truck was owned by the appellant. Out of the eight persons, six died whereas two suffered injuries. No claim petition was filed by the injured persons whereas as many as six claim petitions were filed by the heirs of the deceased. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after holding the truck driver to be negligent in driving awarded different amounts of compensation to the heirs of the deceased with which this Court is not concerned as only in two cases first appeals were filed by the appellant and after the dismissal of those appeals by the learned Single Judge, two appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent have been filed before a Division Bench.

In the case of death of Madan Lal, a sum of Rs. 87,522/- has been given to the heirs of the deceased whereas in the case of death of Ram Singh compensation amount of Rs. 88,000/- has been given, out of the aforementioned amounts, the liability of the insurance company has been fixed at Rs. 50,000/- in each case.

The appellant feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge has filed the appeals which as has been observed above are being disposed of herein.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Tribunal, the truck driver could not be found to be negligent. We have gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as by the tribunal. The entire evidence has been discussed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. It has come in evidence that the Tractor was being driven on its correct side and that the truck came from the opposite direction at a very fast speed and hit the Tractor. The truck was loaded with paddy straw which was bulging from the body of the tractor. There is no satisfactory evidence on the record to come to the conclusion that the Tractor came on the right side of the road and banged into the truck. The statement of Phul Singh, AW-2 who was travelling in the Tractor has been relied upon by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The presence of this witness could not be dis-believed as he had suffered fracture at the time of accident. He clearly stated that the Tractor was being driven at a speed of 10-15 Kms. per hour. Even otherwise it can straight way be observed that the Tractors are normally not driven at a fast speed. The finding of negligence being on of fact and having been based upon good evidence is not liable to be interfered with in Letters Patent Appeals.

There is another aspect of the matter. The appellant has accepted the finding of negligence by not filing any appeal against the award given by the Tribunal in other four cases. The appellant cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath, The finding has become final and cannot be reopened.

Averting to the amount of compensation we are of the firm view that no interference is called for. AW-9 has stated in his statement that Madan Lal was serving as Time Keeper in the Sugar Mill, Yamunanagar at a salary of Rs. 566.70 P.M. besides he was getting bonus at the rate of 20 percent payable on the annual earnings and in view thereof the Tribunal was right in assessing the annual income of the deceased Madan Lal at Rs. 8,208/- and after making the allowance upon the expenditure of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants in our considered view has rightly been held at Rs. 5,472.00 p.m. Keeping in view the age of the deceased which was 30 years, a multiplier of 16 cannot be said to be on the higher side. Rather it is on the lower side and therefore no reduction is warranted in the case of compensation payable to the heirs of Madan Lal, deceased.

Similar is the position with the case of Ran Singh, deceased. He was a farmer and was aged 32 years. A multiplier of 16 has rightly been given. He being a farmer cultivating 11 acres of land had been driving Tractor and therefore his total income was rightly adjudged at Rs. 8,250/- in one year and annual dependency was also rightly held at Rs. 5,500/-

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the insurance company should have been made liable for the entire amount of compensation. The argument has got absolutely no force. The insurance-Company took up a specific plea in the pleadings regarding its liability at Rs. 50,000/-. Not only this, the insurance company placed on record the insurance policy. According to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, its liability could not be more than Rs. 50,000/- in respect of each death and this is what precisely have been recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in either of the contentions of the counsel for the appellant, The appeals are accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.