JUDGMENT
A.L. Bahri, J.
1. By this judgment two appeals are being disposed of arising out of the same Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, whereby compensation was awarded to Nar Singh claimant on account of the injuries suffered by him end Smt. Gomti and others, legal heirs of Shamsher Singh who died in the accident. The claimants have filed two appeals (F. A. O. 1008 and FAO No. 1009 of 1984), whereas on behalf of the respondents cross-objections have been filed.
2. The accident took place on November 5, 1983 at about 2.30 p. m. near a brick-kiln near the Kakkar Majra road. Shamsher Singh deceased, aged about 32 1/2 years was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor. Truck No. HRE-92 driven by Balwant Singh respondent came rashly and negligently and hit the tractor which got turned turtle with the result Shamsher Singh died on the spot, whereas Nar Singh received injuries. The accident was witnessed by Om Parkash and Ram Swaroop witnesses. Ram Swaroop and Gulab Singh removed the injured and the deceased to the hospital. The matter was reported to the Police by Ram Swaroop. Nar Singh in his claim-petition claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for injuries and Rs. 20,000/- as damage to the tractor belonging to his father Padam Singh, who was also one of the claimants in his case The legal heirs of Shamsher Singh, Smt. Gomti and others claimed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-.
3. Both the claims were contested by driver Balwant Singh and Attar Singh, owner of the truck. According to them at the relevant time the truck was being driven at a slow speed. The tractor was going ahead of the truck which was driven at a very rash speed and while taking a turn at the crossing it turned trutle. The person who was sitting on the mud-guard, lost his balance and fell on the ground and died. The Insurance Company also contested the claim, inter alia, alleging that the driver of the truck was not possessing a valid driving licence. They also challenged the quantum of compensation claimed. Following issues were framed :–
(1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRE-92 driven by Balwant Singh, respondent No. 1? OPP.
(2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation if any, are the claimants entitled and from whom? OPP
(3) Whether the driver of the truck, namely, Balwant Singh was having a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR
(4) Whether the application is maintainable in the present form? OPR
(5) Relief.
4. Under issue No. 1 it was held that the truck was driven rashly and negligently by Balwant Singh driver which caused the accident. Under issue No. 2 Nar Singh was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,000/- lump sum; on account of the injuries suffered and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was held payable to Padam Singh owner of the tractor. Under issue No. 3 it was held Balwant Singh was having a valid driving licence. Smt. Gomti and others were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 38.400/- on account of the death of Shamsher Singh. The claimants in both the cases were allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the data of institution of the claim application till realisation. Out of sum of Rs. 38,400/, Rs. 20.000/- were awarded to claimant Angoori widow and the remaining amount to be shared equally by the other claimants. Hence the two appeals by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation and cross-objections by the respondents.
5. Since the cross-objections have been filed by the Insurance Company, they would be considered only on the question of quantum. One of the points taken up in the cross-objections is that two separate claim applications should have been filed; one for the injuries suffered by Nar Singh and the other owner of the tractor claiming damages to the tractor. This contention cannot be accepted. The cause of action is the accident involving the motor-vehicle. All the claimants could join hands in filing a joint petition for compensation for the injuries suffered as well as compensation for the damage caused to the tractor The provision of Code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The purpose of the Act is to provide speedy remedy to the claimants. The Tribunal can follow general principles of natural justice in the disposal of the claim petitions. On technical grounds relief could not be denied. Two claimants by filing one petition could claim compensation. The contention is repelled Another point taken up in the cross objections is that as mentioned in the claim petition truck No. HRE 92 driven by Balwant Singh respondent was involved whereas evidence produced was with respect to truck No. HRE-92. This contention again cannot be accepted. It may be a typographical error in giving the truck number, whereas the fact remains that in the written statement filed by the respondents, correct number of the truck has been given. No prejudice has been caused to the parties.
6. With regard to the manner of accident, finding of the Tribunal is based on the evidence produced and I find no reason to differ with the same. Copy of the Information Report and the photographs of the place of accident depiciting the truck as well as the tractor, Exhibits P-1 to P-4 were produced apart from the evidence of eye-witness. These photographs correctly give the number of the track as HRE-92. Balwant Singh appeared as RW-1. He also deposed about the driving of the said truck i. e. No. HRE-92 at about 2.30 p.m. According to him the tractor was going ahead of him at a rash speed and it turned turtle His evidence was rightly not accepted as far as the manner of accident is concerned but the fact that he was driving the aforesaid truck at the relevant time stands admitted. AW-4 Nar Singh who suffered injuries in the accident supported the claimants, case with regard to the manner of accident. There is no reason to discard his evidence in this respect Finding of the Tribunal in this respect is affirmed.
7. As already noticed above, the Tribunal allowed in all a sum of Rs 8,000/- to Nar Singh and Padam Singh out of which Rs. 4,000/- were allowed for the repair of the tractor and sum of Rs. 4,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by Nar Singh in the accident. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that in fact on the repair of the tractor a sum of Rs. 13,000/- was spent and the Tribunal ignored the evidence produced by the claimant in this respect Nar Singh appeared as A.W.-4. He deposed that on account of accident his tractor was badly damaged and he spent on its repair a sum of Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 13,000/-. He produced the receipts which were marked 1 to 11. During cross examination he stated that the tractor involved in the accident was not insured but was purchased on instalment-basis and only one insurance instalment was paid. The tractor was got repaired a week before he gave evidence. It was road-worthy thereafter. The tractor was repaired at the shop of Kirpal Singh. AW-5 Kirpal Singh was produced to depose about the repairing of the tractor for a sum of Rs. 13,000/-. He stated that he put piston sleeves, cylinder head, axle tubes, front axle both sides, gear-box repairs, bonet replacement and head lights etc. He charged about a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as his repair charges. After the accident the tractor was overhauled. I find no reason to discard the evidence of these two witnesses in respect of repair of the tractor. The expenditure was to the tune of Rs. 13,000/-. Nar Singh is entitled to the aforesaid amount. The Tribunal was in error in reducing it to Rs. 4,000/-.
8. It has further been argued that Nar Singh remained in the hospital for about 2-3 months on account of the injuries suffered and the grant of Rs. 4,000/- only on account of injuries was on the lower side. AW-4 Nar Singh desposed that after he was given first aid by the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital, Naraingarh, he left for his village on the next day He is alleged to have suffered injuries on his chest. During cross-examination he stated that he remained conscious after the accident The Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Naraingarh, examined his injured knee. No. prescription issued by the doctor was produced by him and no receipt for purchase of medicines was produced by him. In view of the state of evidence discussed above a sum of Rs. 4000/- was not at all on the lower side as allowed to him on account of injuries suffered by him.
9. As far as compensation fixed on account of the death of Shamsher Singh payable to his legal representatives, the Tribunal allowed in all sum of Rs. 38,400/- taking his income at Rs. 200/- per month applying a multiplier of 16. The contention of learned counsel for the claimants is that the income of Shamsher Singh on account of his business of selling milk of eight buffaloes was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Apart from that Shamsher Singh was also having joint land measuring 7 Killas with his brother from which he was drawing some income of his share of about 3 1/2 Killas. Dependency of the claimants thus was not rightly determined by the Tribunal. AW-1 Dr. H. C. Nagpal deposed about conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of Shamsher Singh. He stated that the death was on account of the injuries which could be suffered in a Motor-vehicle accident. AW-3 Angoori Devi widow of Shamsher Singh desposed about the relationship of the claimants with the deceased i e. being his widow and children and that they were dependent upon the deceased. At the time of death Shamsher Singh was aged 30 years. He was attending to agricultural work as well as he used to sell milk. He was having 8 buffaloes. His monthly income from these two sources was Rs. 1500/- per mensem. It was during cross-examination that she stated that her husband owned about 7 Killas of agricultural land which was joint. Three of the buffaloes had since died and two were sold. The other two buffaloes were kept with their relations. The milk used to be taken away by the shopkeepers from their residence. If nothing more, a sum of Rs 1,000/- per mensem could reasonably be fixed as income of the deceased. Thus, dependency of the claimants on the deceased would be Rs. 700/-. Applying a multiplier of 16, the figure would come to Rs. 1,34,400/-. However, in the claim petition the claimants only prayed for the grant of compensation amount of Rs. 1,25.000/-. Their claim was thus quite reasonable and they are entitled to the said amount.
10. The Insurance Policy of the truck involved in the accident was produced on the file Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that according to Section 95(2)(ii)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the Insurance Company with respect to damage to the tractor, a third party vehicle could not be more than Rs 6,000/-. Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the damages to the tractor would be only to extent of Rs. 6,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 7000/- would be payable by the driver and the owner of the truck. Regarding compensation for injuries and on account of death, the respondents would be jointly and severally liable.
11. For the reasons recorded above, appeals filed by the claimants are allowed with costs. Cross-objections are dismissed with no order as to costs. The Award of the Tribunal is modified. Nar Singh and Padam Singh claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,000/- (Rs. 13,000/- on account of damage to the tractor to Padam Singh and Rs. 4.000/- on account of injuries to Nar Singh) Smt. Gomti and other claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,25 000/ Smt. Angoori Devi will get Rs. 50,000/- and the other claimants will get the remaining amount equally. The Claimants would get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim application till realisation. Counsel’s fee in each case is fixed at Rs. 1000/-.