AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—All these appeals arise out of the same accident. All the petitioners are the injured and inmates of a goods Tempo. The petitioners are potters who hired goods Tempo for transporting pottery. After sale, they were returning in the goods Tempo with the jowar bags.
Petitioner in M.V.C. No. 893 of 2001 sustained fracture of the right radius. She is a potter, her income to be assessed at Rs. 1,500 per month. Petitioner could be awarded Rs. 30,000 for pain and agony, Rs. 10,000 towards medical and incidental expenses, Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs. 18,000 towards loss of future income on account of disability and Rs. 6,000 for loss of income during laid up period. In all the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 74,000 as against Rs. 40,000 awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced compensation, the interest payable shall be 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. M.F.A. No. 3542 of 2003 is allowed as indicated above.
The compensation awarded in the M.V.C. Nos. 894 and 896 of 2001 is just and proper and does not call for enhancement.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the insurer on the ground that the petitioners were travelling in a goods vehicle. The accident took place on 26.4.1997 by which date the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be amended mandating the insurer to cover the risk of owner of goods travelling in the goods vehicle. All the petitioners were travelling along with goods. The vehicle is a light goods vehicle and permitted capacity is only three persons. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to three of the highest claims. In that view, the insurer shall pay compensation to the petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 893, 894 and 896 of 2001.
In the vehicle in question about six persons were travelling with the goods in excess of the permitted seating capacity of three. All petitioners were aware that they were travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted seating capacity. The liability of the insurer is to satisfy only three of the highest claims. But, the persons who have received three of the highest claims will have the benefit of receiving compensation from the insurer. The persons who have been awarded lesser compensation other than three highest claims have to proceed against the owner for recovery of the compensation which is rather unpredictable proposition. Therefore, the equity demands that persons who have received highest compensation shall have to donate an equitable percentage of compensation to other claimants who have no right to recover compensation from the insurer, so that all the petitioners will have a certainty of receiving a substantial portion of the compensation from the insurer. The balance have to be recovered by all the petitioners from the owner. In the instant case, the petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 893, 894 and 896 of 2001 shall donate 20 per cent of their compensation with the proportionate interest. The aggregate of 20 per cent of the compensation in all the three cases works out to Rs. 19,200. The same shall be payable to petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 897, 898 and 899 of 2001. Petitioners in M.V.C. Nos. 893, 894 and 896 of 2001 shall recover the donated portion of compensation from the owner.
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of with the above observations.