ORDER
A.R. Tiwari, J.
1. The order passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 59/84 Babu v. Dhannalal and Ors., preferred against the same award.
2. This miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the award dated 1.12.1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 17/82 thereby granting the award of Rs. 3,710/-together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 28.8.1982 against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
3. Another Misc. Appeal No. 59/84 is filed by the claimant (appellant) against the respondents under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement in the amount of award.
4. Both the appeals are connected matters and thus, are heard together.
5. The facts in brief are that Dhannalal and Nandlal owned the truck bearing Registration No. CPO-7959. It was driven by Rafiq Mohammad. It was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Indore On 12.5.1982, the truck was driven negligently and rashly by the aforesaid driver. It turned turtle and in this accident, the claimant suffered a number of injuries including the fracture. On 28.8.1982, the claimant presented the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The other side resisted the claim and pleaded its impeccability. On evaluation of evidence, the Tribunal passed the award as under-
Rs. 700/- towards the loss of income. Rs. 2,510/- towards medical treatment Rs. 500/- towards general damages. ___________ Rs. 3,710 Total. ___________
6. The National Insurance Company was the appellant in M.A. No. 55/84 assailed this order on the ground that it was not liable to shoulder the liability whereas the claimant in M.A. No. 59/84 prayed for enhancement in the quantum of award. This is how two separate appeals were filed.
7. I have heard Shri Dandawate, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Shri T.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the claimant and have perused the record.
8. As regards M.A. No. 55/84, it is found that the appeal is absolutely non-meritorious. The findings as regards the liability being foisted on the Insurance Co. are on firm foundation and arc not liable to be dislodged and demolished. In fact the learned Counsel very frankly conceded that the liability was inescapable in view of the Full Bench Decision of his Court reported in 1987 ACJ (Vol. I) Page 1 Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru and ors. It is apt to reproduce para 5 of this judgment–
The hirer of a goods vehicle of his employee cannot come under the first proviso but can only come under the second proviso, i.e. if they are either passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. Good vehicle is defined under Section 2(8) of the Act as vehicle constructed or adopted for use for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adopted when used for the carriage of goods, solely or in addition to passengers. From this definition it would be clear that a goods vehicle can be a vehicle meant to carry passengers also. Rule 111 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules provides that no person shall be carried in the cab of goods vehicle beyond six persons in addition to the driver. Therefore, the rule also provides that in addition to driver six more persons can be carried as passengers in a goods vehicle, obviously as caretaker of the goods, or for loading and unloading purposes. So it cannot be said that carrying of passengers in a goods vehicle is totally prohibited. In fact, in the policies in both the cases, there is a stipulation that the passengers carried for hire or reward or in pursuance of a contract of employment are covered under the policies and further in Misc. F. Appeal No. 124 of 1981 the policy itself specif ied that six persons can be carried in the vehicle in question apart from the driver. We are of the opinion that the hirer while paying hire charges for carrying the goods in the vehicle any while he or his employee is required to travel with the goods for its safety in the vehicle, it will be deemed that the hirer was carried in the vehicle for reward while his employee was carried in the vehicle in pursuance of his employment. So the hirer and his employee both have to be covered under the Insurance Policy and the insurer is bound to pay compensation for the death or bodily injury while the vehicle met with the accident.
9. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
10. As regards M.A. No. 59/84 I may make a reference to a decision reported in 1970 ACJ 189 Vinod Kumar Shrivastava v. Ved Mitra. This Court has laid down the principles for award of damages in case of personal injuries suffered by accident-
(a) The amount of compensation must be reasonable and needs to be assessed with moderation.
(b) The quantification should be with due regard to comparable cases.
(c) The level should, to a considerable extent, be conventional.
11. Tested on the aforesaid principles, I find that the award is inadequate and deserves to be suitably modified.
12. The Act is a benevolent legislation and its avowed object is to compensate the victim properly. Being a welfare legislation, its intendment ought to be kept in mind.
13. Taking over all view of the evidential material I hold that the sum of R. 6,010/- build up as under, would be just and reasonable compensation in the facts and circum-stances of the case-
Rs. 2,000/- towards the loss of income(as
claimantwas hospitalised for
about 40 days to receive
treatment) instead of Rs.
700/-as awarded by the
Tribunal.
Rs. 2,510/- towards the medical treatment
as already allowed by the
Tribunal.
Rs. 1,500/- towards the general damages
instead of Rs. 500/- allowed
by the Tribunal.
____________
Rs.6,010/- Total
____________
14. As regards the interest, I find that there is enough justification to enhance the same in the face of marked visibility of devaluation; Can any one look upon a rupee as a rupee? There is mountaineous devaluation and the value of the rupee is dropped to cavernous depth. The minimum level is now 12% per annum. It is, therefore, just and proper to enhance the rate of interest from 6% per annum to 12% per annum.
15. In the ultimate analysis, the Misc. Appeal No. 59/84 is allowed in part. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to this extent that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 shall pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 6.010/- (Six thousand ten) instead of Rs. 3.710/- together with interest @ 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum, from the date of application i.e. 28.8.82. till realisation,
16. Accordingly, M.A. No. 55/84 is dismissed while M.A. No. 59/84 is allowed in part.
17. The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs as incurred in both the appeals. The records of the Tribunal be returned immediately.
18. A copy of this order shall be placed in the record of M.A. No. 59/84.