AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rampal Singh, J.
The appellant, by this appeal, filed undfer Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (for short, hereinafter called ''the Claims Tribunal'') in Claim Case No. 104 of 1982 dated 28th November, 1984.
One Dhanna was a painter working in J.C. Mills, Gwalior. On 30-6-1982 in the evening when he left for home after his duty, near Gole Ka Temple, a tractor No. CPH 5955, which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed against Dhanna from behind, due to which he sustained extensive external and internal injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately rushed to the hospital in a precarious condition, but he breathed his last on 1-7-1982. At the time of his death, he was 50 years of age and was earning about Rs. 500/- per month. He was the only bread earning patriarch and the whole family depended upon his earnings. The claimants are his widow and children. They claimed an amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- as damages from the appellant and respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
The appellant, who was defendant No. 1 admitted to be the owner of the tractor. The appellant also admitted that defendant No. 2 was its driver at the time of the accident. The appellant hotly contested the claim and contended, inter alia, that defendant No. 3, the insurance company, was liable to pay. Defendant No. 3 denied the fact that the said tractor was insured with them on the date of the accident. Defendant No. 3 further contended that defendant No. 2 was not a licensed driver and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and not defendant No. 3, are liable to satisfy the claim arising out of the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal framed the issues and, after recording the evidence of the parties, recorded the findings as given below:
(i) As a result of the rash and negligent driving by defendant No. 2 of the tractor belonging to the appellant, Dhanna died after sustaining very serious injuries.
(ii) Deceased Dhanna was 55 years of age and was healthy at the time of his death.
(iii) Dhanna was earning Rs. 510/- per month and from it he maintained the claimants.
(iv) The claimants are entitled to Rs. 39,000/- as damages from the appellant,
(v) The appellant-defendant No. 1 failed to prove that the tractor in question was insured on the date of the accident with the insurance company, etc.
This court on 17-10-1985 admitted this appeal on the point as to whether the exemption from payment of the amount claimed by the insurance company was justified and legal ? But the appellant was permitted to address this court on the merit of the case also. The claimants-respondents have preferred a cross-objection on the ground that the amount awarded to them is meagre and the Claims Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that the deceased was also earning extra money by doing the work of painting in his free hours. Mr. R.K. Patni, learned Counsel for the appellant, has taken me through the entire evidence on record and contended that the appellant sent a proposal from its office for the insurance of the tractor on 28-6-1982, i.e., two days before the accident. The appellant also sent a cheque of the premium and, hence, defendant No. 3 the insurance company, was liable to pay the amount of compensation. Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, repelled the contentions of Mr. Patni and maintained that the proposal form and the said cheque were ante-dated and were sent to the office of the insurance company only after the date of the accident, to escape liability. According to him, there was no insurance of the tractor on the date of the accident and, hence, the insurance company was not legally liable to pay the amount of damages.
I need not burden this judgment unnecessarily with the facts and evidence, because the learned Claims Tribunal has extensively dealt with the facts of the case and discussed the evidence in great detail in the impugned award. Mahesh (AW 2) has given an eye-witness account of the accident. He informed the wife of Dhanna and she lodged a report of the accident at the Police Station. Kasturi Bai (AW 1) is the unfortunate widow, who has given all the facts to prove her claim. Dr. V.K. Diwan (AW 4) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Dhanna on 1-7-1982 and found 10 left side ribs of the body were fractured, left lung was crushed, right pelvic bone was fractured. Besides these, there were numerous injuries on the chest and back, due to which he died. It is apparent that Dhanna was crushed to death by the wheels of the tractor. The nature of the injuries leave no room for doubt, in my opinion, that the tractor was being driven at the time of the accident rashly and negligently, and the death of Dhanna was the direct result of the injuries sustained by him due to the accident.
The age of the deceased was rightly assessed at 55 years on the basis of the evidence tendered by Kasturi Bai (AW 1), the widow of the deceased, Mahesh (AW 2) and Dr. V.K. Diwan (AW 4). Dhanna was correctly held to be healthy and fit for work at the time of his death. Kasturi Bai (AW 1) stated that her husband was earning Rs. 500/- per month from J.C. Mills. Rakesh Sharma (AW 3) has proved this fact on the basis of the entries made in the record of the Mills and has stated that the deceased was getting at the time of his death Rs. 416.73 per month plus bonus. So far as the private work of painting by the deceased was concerned, Kasturi Bai (AW 1), the widow, has admitted that her deceased husband did private work of painting for 10 to 15 days in a month. She has further stated that he earned from the private work of painting Rs. 8/- to 10/- per day during the holidays. From the above facts, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly concluded that Dhanna used to earn Rs. 40/- on four holidays per month and about Rs. 50f- per month on other holidays. But it failed to correctly assess the amount earned by Dhanna from his private practice. If along with the salary of Rs. 416.73, which he was getting from the Mills, the amount of Rs. 90/- which he used to earn per month from private work of painting and the amount of bonus, which too he was getting from the Mills, are added, then the per month earning of the deceased crossed the limit of Rs. 510/-per month. If an amount of Rs. 1,000/- is added to the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, then the income from bonus calculated can be explained justly and the damages, thus, come to a total of Rs. 40,000/-.
Defendant No. 3, the insurance company, has examined Prithivipal Singh, who states that he received the proposal form with the premium from the appellant only on 12-7-1982. The document (Exh. D-2) contains the date and endorsement of its receipt. The cheque was received along with Exh. D-2 and the receipt was issued by the insurance company on 16-7-1982 (Exh. D-3). He also produced documents Exhs. D-4 and D-5. Thus, the offending tractor was insured by the insurance company and a policy was issued for the period between 12-7-1982 and 11-7-1983. H.C Solanki was examined by the appellant. According to him Exh. D-2, the proposal form was prepared in his office on 28-6-1982 and it was given to an employee of the technical branch. This employee was not examined by the appellant to prove the fact as to on what date he delivered the proposal form in the office of the insurance company The appellant has also not produced any acknowledgement or receipt for proving the same, issued by the insurance company. I therefore, concur with the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that on 30-6-1982, which is the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company, defendant No 3, and hence, it was not liable to pay any amount of compensation on this account. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the appellant. I also concur with the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that the claimant widow is also entitled to be compensated for the loss of her marital bliss. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed an amount in that behalf at Rs. 3,000/-. Though this amount is meagerly low, I do not intend to interfere with the assessment made by the learned Claims Tribunal.
The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% only. This rate is very much low. Due to inflation, the money has lost its value, and the nationalised banks are paying enhanced rate of interest. In my view, therefore, the award of 6% interest deserves to be modified. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins 1985 ACJ 397 (SC), was of the view that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment should be awarded on the total amount of compensation. Therefore, it would be just and proper if the claimants are allowed interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/-.
Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs throughout. The cross-objection of the claimants is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 40,000/-. On this amount of compensation the rate of interest shall be at 12% and not 6% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of payment. Counsel''s fee Rs. 350/- is being quantified by this court.
Before parting, I would like to caution the learned Claims Tribunal that it should strictly supervise the payment of the amount. It should also see that the amount is deposited in a nationalised bank in the joint names of all the claimants including those who are minors.