AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.
1 This appeal is by the parents of the deceased Nanda Kumar, calling in question the award of the tribunal on the ground that while assessing the compensation, the tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,500/- per month, whereas it ought to have been atleast Rs. 3,000/- per month as a lorry cleaner.
Referring to the above ground, learned Counsel for the appellants sought for enhancement of compensation under the head of loss to the estate and medical expenses incurred for treatment of the deceased as well as loss of love and affection.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent - insurance company argued that as the accident in question occurred on account of a tanker being found fallen and the car insured with the 2nd respondent having hit the tanker following which the tanker exploded, the tribunal could have apportioned the negligence between the drivers of two vehicles at 50 - 50%.
In support of the above submission, learned Counsel placed reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court reported in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, . It is further submitted that even without filing an appeal, the insurance company can question the finding on negligence.
Having thus heard both sides, before I consider the assessment of compensation done by the tribunal, it is proper to refer to the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the insurance company.
The decision reported in AIR 1999 S.C. 3571 lays down the law that when the decree is passed by the court of first instance, the respondent can question the ad verse finding without filing cross-objections and the other decision reported in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, refers to the strict liability principle propounded in Rylands v. Fletcher and the Apex Court observed that the owner of the vehicle is liable for compensation to a person who suffered on account of accident even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver or the owner and in holding so, the Apex Court referred to the principle laid clown in Rylands v. Fletcher.
In my view, the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the instant case because the facts and circumstances of the case are quite different and secondly the tribunal while recording a finding on the aspect of negligence has clearly stated that the tanker was found fallen and the deceased had gone there to see the tanker alongwith others and at that time the car insured with the 2nd respondent hit the tanker and there was explosion.
Therefore, taking note of the facts of the. case and the documents produced by the claimants and the ease being registered against only the driver of the car, the tribunal had no difficulty in putting the. blame entirely on the car driver. The said finding appears to be just and reasonable and the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the insurance company cannot be accepted.
As far as quantum is concerned; the tribunal could have taken the income at Rs. 3,000/-per month as a lorry driver and consequently under the head of loss of dependency, the amount will work out to Rs. 2,70,000/- and with this, compensation gets enhanced under the head of loss of dependency by Rs. 23,940/-, towards loss to the estate Rs. 10,000/- is awarded and towards medical expenses inclined Rs. 5,000/- is awarded and towards love and affection, following the death of only son of claimants and the deceased being young in age, it is proper to award Rs. 10,000/- under this head. Thus the compensation overall gets increased by Rs. 48,940/- which will carry interest @ 6% p.a.
Award stands modified accordingly by allowing the appeal in part thus.