Smt. Jamni Devi vs Som Nath and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—Appellant Jamna Devi is the mother of deceased Ashok Kumar. She had filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compensation of Rs. 5 lacs was claimed on account of death of Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar died as a result of the accident that took place on 17.6.1992 on Rohtak-Delhi by-pass. She had contended that Ashok Kumar died as a result of rash and negligent driving of Haryana Roadways bus No.HR-24-A-8803. Som Nath was the driver of the said bus. It had been contended that Ashok Kumar was going on the scooter from Tilak Nagar to Sector-1, HUDA, Rohtak. When he reached near the Rohtak Delhi by-pass road, Som Nath came driving the Haryana Roadways bus and had hit deceased Ashok Kumar. Ashok Kumar died on 23.6.1992. As per the appellant Ashok Kumar was earning Rs. 2,000/- P.M. by taking tuitions.

The petition was contested and Som Nath driver of Haryana Roadways bus took up the plea that deceased was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and had suddenly come on Rohtak-Delhi National Highway from a kacha approach. He did not observe any traffic signal. As per Som Nath he was driving the bus of Haryana Roadways at a normal speed on left side. The entire negligence was of the deceased. He further pleaded that the deceased before his death had admitted ids mistake before the police. As a result of this fact, respondent No.1 was not challaned even by the police. Similar defence had been taken by the State of Haryana and General Manager, Haryana Roadways.

The New India Assurance Company in its separate reply contended that the bus in question was not insured with the insurance company. It was also pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus.

The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak vide award dated 8.11.1993 held that Ashok Kumar died as a result of rash and negligent driving of Som Nath driver of Haryana Roadways bus. The appellant was held to be the legal representative of the deceased. With respect to the compensation, the learned Tribunal, returned the findings that the deceased was earning about Rs. 500/- P.M. Rs. 150/- was deducted as a personal expenses and the yearly dependency was taken at Rs. 4,200/-. The multiplier of 12 was applied and compensation was awarded at Rs. 50,400/-. Since the father of the deceased had not filed the petition, the appellant was allowed Rs. 25,200/- as the compensation. It was held that vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd- In addition to that interest at 12% '' from the date of filing of the petition tiff realisation on the awarded amount was given.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

The sole controversy agitated was that the whole of the compensation should have been awarded to the appellant and that the learned Tribunal was in error in deducting 50% of the amount on the ground that father of the deceased had. not been arrayed as a claimant.

It is not being disputed that the appellant was Class I heir of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Father of the deceased admittedly is a Class II heir. Otherwise also, he was not dependent on the deceased. In that view of the matter, giving half of the total compensation awarded to the appellant is improper. She was thus entitled to whole of the compensation.

No other arguments was advanced.

For these reasons, the appeal is accepted and the award of the learned Motor. Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak is modified. The appellant is allowed compensation of Rs. 50,400/- to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. She would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.