AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—Since both the aforesaid cross-objection and appeal arise out of the judgment and award dt. 21.5.2001 passed by MACT Tonk, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.5.1996 at about 2.30 PM, Hajari was bringing the woolen bags in Vehicle No. RJ 09 G 715 from Kekri to Deoli. Near Kasir Mod, the driver of the truck drove the truck rashly and negligently in intoxicated condition, as a result of which the truck over-turned and the persons sitting in the truck namely Hajari Lal and others sustained injuries and ultimately died.
Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged. Claim Petition Nos. 65/2001 and 66/2001 were filed. Notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award awarding Rs. 4,10,4000/-in favour of claimants in claim petition no. 65/2001 and Rs. 2,19,000/- in favour of claimants in Claim Petition No. 66/2001.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the claimants in claim petition No. 66/2001 have filed the cross objections for enhancement of amount of compensation, while Insurance Company has filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.
Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased only Rs. 1000/- per month, whereas as per the uncontroverted testimony the income of the deceased was Rs. 4000/- per month as he was a Khalasi on the truck. He has further contented that the future prospects of the deceased have not been considered by the learned Tribunal as have been directed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Devi vs. NIC. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be modified and the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance company contended that the Tribunal has committed a serious error of law in passing the award against the Insurance company, particularly in view of issue no. 5, which was based upon the facts that vehicle No. RJ-09-G-0715 involved in the accident was a goods vehicle. The deceased was travelling as a passenger in the said goods vehicle which was not authorized in terms of the policy of Insurance and a plea to that effect had been raised in para No. 4 of the preliminary objection to the claim application filed by the Insurance Company. He has further contended that in the absence of the driver, it could not be ascertained whether the passengers were travelling as a gratuitous passengers or the deceased Nand Kishore had been engaged as Labourer or was carrying vegetables as alleged by AW-2 Ganesh. In all the three circumstances, the consequences would have different result, if the passenger is travelling having paid the fare to the driver as was alleged by AW-2 that he had paid the fare to the driver. As such the learned Tribunal should have passed the award only against the owner and the driver and not against the Insurance Company.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence emerging on record, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dt. 21.5.2001 passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, both the cross objection as also the appeal fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly Consequent upon the dismissal of appeal, the stay application, filed herewith, does not survive and it also stands dismissed.