JUDGMENT
Arun Mishra, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant as against award dated 30.10.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No. 40 of 2002.
2. The claimant filed application seeking compensation on account of death of Premchand who was the driver of the truck No. MHG 7673, he was taking the truck as per the direction of the employer to coal kiln at Junnardeo. When the truck was negotiating uphill road on the hillock, all of a sudden, owing to mechanical failure it could not go ahead and was reversed, driver fell down owing to imbalance and suffered injuries in various parts of body and died. The total compensation claimed was Rs. 8,50,000. It was submitted that deceased was earning as driver a sum of Rs. 3,000 per month, he has left behind widow.
3. In the written statement, the owner has contended that the accident took place owing to negligence of driver, he violated the traffic rules as such owner is not liable to make payment of compensation.
4. The insurer took the plea that intimation of the accident was not given, deceased did not possess valid driving licence, no premium was paid to cover the risk of the driver, as such insurer is not liable to make payment of compensation.
5. The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the application on the ground that it was the driver’s negligence owing to which accident took place, thus, the claimant is not entitled for compensation except under no fault liability of sum of Rs. 50,000 which has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.
6. Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing for appellant-claimant has submitted that it is a case where there was no negligence of the driver, he drove the truck cautiously, owing to mechanical defects and poor maintenance the truck could not go ahead on uphill road and came on the reverse side, there was no fault on part of driver, he did not apply reverse gear. Thus, adequate compensation be awarded considering the income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000 per month.
7. Mr. A.K. Ben, the learned Counsel appearing for insurer has submitted that finding of negligence has been arrived at on assessment of evidence, hence, no interference is called for in this appeal.
8. On going through the statement of Dashrath Suryavanshi, CW 2, it is clear that deceased drove the truck cautiously, he was negotiating the uphill road which could not be cleared by the truck which is not very uncommon, truck started reversing all of a sudden and got imbalanced, there were holes and stones on the road which was cause of imbalancing of truck, it cannot be said to be a case of negligence by the driver, it was purely a mechanical fault or due to poor maintenance the truck could not go up-hill, owing to which accident took place. It appears from statement of Dashrath Suryavanshi, CW 2 that driver had taken all the precautions, all of a sudden accident took place, driver has not dashed the vehicle against any other vehicle. The method and manner in which accident had taken place negligence cannot be attributed to deceased. It has also come in the evidence that whenever such a vehicle is reversed it is the duty of the cleaner to put stone or wooden log behind wheel to prevent mishap and to stop the truck. Driver could not have put stone or wooden log. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case of negligence on part of driver. Thus, we find that finding recorded of negligence of the driver by the Claims Tribunal cannot be allowed to sustain, same is hereby set aside.
9. Coming to quantum of compensation, the widow of deceased has stated that deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 per month, he was working in Bhagya Laxmi Saw Mills as a driver. In our opinion, it would be safe to assess the income of driver at Rs. 2,000 per month instead of Rs. 3,000 per month as claimed, the age of the deceased was 38 years, at the age of 38 years, multiplier applicable is that of ’16’.
10. In view of our finding that income was Rs. 2,000 per month, annual income comes to Rs. 24,000, 1/3rd amount has to be deducted which amount deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive. Thus, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,000, multiplier of 16 is applicable. Thus, total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 16,000 x 16 = Rs. 2,56,000. In addition, the widow is entitled for loss of consortium Rs. 5,000, Rs. 2,000 on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 on account of loss to estate, Rs. 5,000 on account of loss of expectancy of life. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,56,000 + Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 5,000 = Rs. 2,70,500 (rupees two lakh seventy thousand and five hundred). Liability is held to be joint and several of the respondents to make payment of compensation.
11. Coming to submission raised by Mr. A.K. Ben that no premium was paid with respect to covering the risk of the driver, there is no evidence adduced by the insurer and policy has not been placed on record. Plea has not been substantiated, hence, we find that submission raised is hollow, cannot be accepted. Licence of driver is already on record. Thus, we find that the insurer cannot escape the liability to make payment of compensation.
12. The appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No costs.