Sonu and Another vs Balbir Singh and Another

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—F.A.O. No. 562 of 1992 and 260 of 1993 are being disposed of by this common judgment as they have arisen out of common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani dismissing claim petition Nos. 58 and 68 of 1991. F.A.O. No. 562 of 1992 has been filed by Sonu and another seeking compensation on account of death of their mother Azad Devi in a road accident on 1.4.1991 F.A.O. No. 260 of 1993 has been filed by Ram Bhagat for setting aside the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby his claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him has been dismissed. The claim petitions were dismissed on the ground that Azad Devi and Ram Bhagat were travelling as gratuitous passengers and as such are not entitled to any compensation. In both these appeal, the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been impugned on the ground that Azad Devi and Ram Bhagat cannot be termed as gratuitous passengers.

The brief facts of the case are that on 1.4.1991, Azad Devi alongwith her two minor sons was going towards Dadri on tractor bearing registration No. HYD-2579, which was being driven by the husband of Azad Devi. On way, Ram Bhagat stopped the tractor and took a lift. While tractor was proceeding towards Dadri, a truck bearing registration No. PBW-8095 which was coming from behind and was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver Balbir Singh, respondent struck against the tractor from behind. As a impact of accident, Azad Devi, her husband Jagdish and their children Sonu and Monu were thrown in the ditches alongwith the tractor. Azad Devi died at the spot. Jagdish had received multiple injuries and died on way to the hospital, Jagdish, Sonu and Monu had also sustained injuries in the said accident. Jagdish died on way to the hospital due to serious injuries sustained by him. Ram Bhagat claimant had also received injuries on his right hand, shoulder, right ear, right leg and ankle etc.

In claim Petition No. 57 of 1991, which was filed in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claimants namely Sonu and Monu were awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,34,100/- on account of death of their father. However, claim petition No. 58 of 1991 for the grant of compensation for the death of their mother Azad Devi was dismissed on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as Azad Devi was sitting on the tractor as a gratuitous passenger and the passengers cannot travel on the tractor as per terms of insurance policy. The claim petition of Ram Bhagat was dismissed for the same reason.

The counsel for the claimants has argued that the offending truck bearing registration No. PBW-8095 was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck by Balbir Singh respondent and as such the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of the liability to pay compensation. The counsel further contended that the claimants be awarded adequate compensation for the death of their mother Azad Devi. The counsel further contended that Azad Devi (since deceased) and Ram Bhagat should not have been termed as gratuitous passengers.

In reply to the arguments of counsel for the claimants, counsel for the respondents argued that Azad Devi and Ram Bhagat were travelling on the tractor as gratuitous passengers and tractor is not a mode of conveyance. He has further contended that no liability on the Insurance Company can be fastened.

After having considered the submissions I find merits in the appeal and the same deserves to be allowed.

As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, Azad Devi has died in the accident and Ram Bhagat sustained injuries. It is not disputed that truck No. PBW-8095 which has caused the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company, Jalandhar, Bhiwani Branch. The counsel appearing for the respondents has not been able to dispute that as per terms of the Insurance Company, third party''s risk was not covered. I am of the considered view that the claimants would not have been entitled to any compensation had the accident been caused due to negligence of the driver of the tractor or had be caused the accident. While awarding compensation of claimants Sonu and Monu, in Claim Petition No. 57 of 1991, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Balbir Singh, driver of the truck. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, with which the offending truck was insured, is liable to pay compensation against third party risk. As the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending truck by its driver Balbir Singh, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay compensation.

The question which remains to be determined is as to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to. Sonu and Monu on account of death of their parents have become orphans. They have been deprived of love and care of their mother. There being none to look after them, will remain dependable on others even for small jobs. The father of the children was running dairy business. Had Azad Devi not died in the accident, she would have looked after the buffaloes etc. For the care of buffaloes, some other persons will have to be employed and such help can be available at the minimum wage of Rs. 600/- per month i.e. Rs. 7,200/- per annum. The children are too young and they will need this help atleast for 12 years. Therefore, a multiplier of ''12'' would be a suitable multiplier. Accordingly, by applying a multiplier of ''12'', the claimants would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 86,400/-(Rupees eighty six thousands and four hundred only) in claim petition No. 58 of 1991. alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing Claim Petition. The amount of compensation is to be shared equally by Sonu and Monu claimants. Being minors, the compensation amount is to be deposited in their names in the Nationalised Bank in fixed deposits and the same shall be paid to them on their attaining majority.

In the case of Ram Bhagat, it has come on the record that he had received injuries the details of which have been given in the earlier part of judgment. Dr. S.S. Kadian, who has radiologically examined Ram Bhagat found fractures on right humerus and right clavicle. Ram Bhagat had also produced medical bills amounting to Rs. 3,000/-.

Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, pain and sufferings, expenditure incurred by him on medicines, he is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) with 12% per annum interest from the date of filing Claim Petition. The liability to pay compensation is that of driver and the owner of the truck.

The appeals are allowed in the manner indicated above. The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified to that extent.