Prabhati vs Lal Chand Etc.
1986 Latest Caselaw 132 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

(1) This is an appeal by the mother of the deceased Gulzari Lal who died in a motor accident caused by truck No. Dlg 9828 on 15-9-68 The deceased was going from Tuglaq Road towards Mehrauli Road Track No. Dlg 9828 coming from the opposite direction hit the deceased in the middle of the road when he was trying to cross-over to the Mehrauli Road. It is claimed that the truck in question did not below any horn and was being driven at a reckless speed. Deceased Gulzari Lal was removed to the Safdarjung Hospital where he died on 18-9-68. The deceased received multiple injuries according to the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem. According to the evidence of Dr B.B. Aggarwal, PW/2. who conducted the post mortem the death was caused due to shock and multiple injuries including fracture of left femur Before the Tribunal the Police had produced the Fir, the photographs and the late plan regarding the accident. They confirmed the fact of the accident.

(2) The claimants have examined two witnesses, Manohar Lal PW/3 and kanhaya Lal PW/4 Their statements were recorded by the Police immediately after the accident. I am taken through the evidence of the witnesses and I am satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated their evidence. No evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents whatsoever. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the truck in question resulting in the death of Gulzari Lal.

(3) CROSS-OBJECTIONS are filed on behalf of the New India Insurance Company, with whom the truck was insured. As a matter of fact the insurance Company filed common written statement on behalf of the driver of the truck, the owner of the truck and on its own behalf. The liability was tried to be disowned. There is no substance in these objections as no evidence was produced by the respondents in the trial and the evidence of the eye witnesses is unimpeachable. Even otherwise the Insurance Company on its own cannot file a cross-objection on merits challenging their liability in view of Section 96 of the Act As stated earlier, there was a common defense of the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company before the Tribunal Although the plea of limited liability was taken by the insurance Company in the written statement, no policy was produced either by the owner or by the Insurance Company to substantiate their claim in the written statement. I, therefore, hold that the New India Assurance Company is liable to pay the full compensation to the claimants.

(4) Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 200.00 per month. There is the evidence of the claimant mother that the deceased was working as a blacksmith and was paying her Rs. 300.00 per month. Ram Lal PW/6 and Sohan Lal PW/8 have confirmed that the deceased was getting about Rs. 10.00 to Rs. 11.00 per day as he was working as a blacksmith on daily basis. The Tribunal cried thereafter in holding that the deceased was contributing only Rs 50.00 per month for the support of the family. It must be remembered that he had a widowed mother to be supported and in such a small income as Rs 200.00 per mon it was unbelievable that he would contribute only Rs. 50.00 per month to the family. I would, therefore, hold that the contribution of the deceased to the family was Rs. 150.00 per month. The Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased would have supported the widowed mother for 18 years more. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18. There is no reason to disturb the s¯me. The claimant would, therefore, be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 32.400.00 . The Tribunal was wrong in deducting an amount of 15% on account of lump sum payment and uncertainties of life. While coming to a conclusion that the deceased would have contributed Rs. 50.00 per month to the family expenses. The Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the deceased would have got married and the contribution would have dwindled If that consideration is to be made, then the chances of his future enhanced earnings should also have been taken into account by the Tribunal The deceased contribution on account of marriage as well a¯ the future enhanced earnings are both in the realm of conjecture and, therefore, I would like to keeping them out and proceed on the basis of the evidence of the income at the time of the death. Now, I have.been consistently holding that no deductions on account of lump sum payment or uncertainties of life should be made in view of the continuous rise in prices, particularly where the person is earning as less as the minimum wages. Therefore, there shall be no deductions on account of lump sum payment The claimant is also entitled to 6 per cent simple interest from the date of the application till the date of payment.

(5) The New India Assurance Company shall draw up a cheque for the principal amount and the interest thereon and deposit the same with the Registrar of this Court within two months from today. The Registrar shall disburse the amount after due notice to the partics.