JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M.V.C. No. 57 of 1995 dated 12.1.1996.
2. Shortly stated, when Gulab Kachhi (deceased) was getting down from Tempo on 8.7.1993 at about 4.30 p.m., jeep No. MUK 91 owned and driven by Janak Raj and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., hit the deceased resulting in serious injuries. He was shifted to the hospital where he died on 10.7.1993.
3. The allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the driver. The deceased was 50 years old with good health. He was the sole earning member of the family and was earning Rs. 60-70/- per day. He could live up to 70 years. The compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum has been claimed. The owner-driver states that he was not driving the jeep nor the deceased was alighting from Tempo. He was not hit by him, nor was he driving the jeep rashly and negligently. The compensation claimed is also excessive. The claimants are not entitled to interest. Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
4. Insurance company denies taking place of accident and causing of injuries to the deceased resulting in his death. The vehicle was not being driven rashly and negligently nor it hit the deceased. Income of the deceased is disputed. Though vehicle was insured yet it was not registered nor the driver had valid driving licence.
5. The Claims Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased died on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its owner and driver. Consequently, the claim has been rejected. Therefore, through this appeal it has been challenged.
6. The first question for determination is whether the accident took place and the deceased suffered injuries and died as a result thereof, due to the jeep having been driven rashly and negligently by the owner and driver thereof? The Claims Tribunal decided that this question has not been proved. This conclusion is based on the fact that the witness Shiv Prasad s/o Dayaram, AW 3, could not be believed because he could state about the taking place of this accident on this date but could not remember some other material facts such as the date of Dusshera festival and he did not give statement to the police. This view of the Claims Tribunal is not correct. Shiv Prasad s/o Dayaram, AW 3, clearly states that he knew the deceased who was a vegetable seller, he used to visit quite often for purchase of vegetables. He was hit by the jeep No. MUK 91 driven rashly and negligently by Janak Raj whom this witness knows because he is resident of nearby village. This means, the accident is witnessed by him. The jeep and driver were noticed by him, therefore, this witness can be believed and the conclusion of the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. More so, the owner-driver did not appear in evidence to explain the case against him.
7. Sukkho Bai, widow of the deceased, has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 60-70/- per day. Similar is the statement of Shiv Prasad, son of the deceased. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, compensation deserves to be determined on the basis of the income so stated.
Taking mean of the two figures, namely, Rs. 60-70/-, the deceased must be earning Rs. 65/- per day, i.e., Rs. 1,950/- per month. After making deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 15,600/- multiplied by 13 compensation comes to Rs. 2,02,800/- plus Rs. 7,000/- for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium to wife, Rs. 2,500/- for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000/-towards funeral expenses. As such, total compensation works out to Rs. 2,19,300/-.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Award is set aside. Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,19,300/-. Owner-driver is held responsible for compensation, payable by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the offending vehicle was insured, within two months. The enhanced amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.
Costs on parties.