JUDGMENT
R.K. Verma, J.
1.This is an appeal filed by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 1.7.1980 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 45 of 1977 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in respect of the death of the deceased Bhagwandas who died as a result of motor accident on 2.6.1976.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:
On 2.6.1976, the deceased Bhagwandas, husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1, was travelling with his goods on the truck bearing registration No. 6993 which was coming from Indore to Kumbhraj, being driven by the driver Ramgopal, respondent No. 3. While the truck was near Kanasia on way to Kumbhraj, in the morning hours, it fell down near a culvert as a result of which the deceased Bhagwandas sustained injuries and died instantaneously. The claimant-respondent No. 1 who is the widow of the deceased Bhagwandas filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the driver of the truck, its owner and the insurer, for compensation amounting to Rs. 2,90,000/- on account of death of her husband in the said accident, alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver.
3. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, found that the deceased husband of the claimant-respondent No. 1 died as a result of motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. The Tribunal found that the deceased Bhagwandas was around 35 years of age and had good health at the time of his death by accident. It also found that the deceased had kirana business at Sanai and earned Rs. 200/- per month from the said business and the claimant’s dependency on the said income was to the extent of Rs. 100/-per month. The learned Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- as damages for mental shock and Rs. 12,000/- by way of general damages, i.e., in all Rs. 15,000/-for the death of her husband in the accident and that the driver, the owner and the insurer in respect of the truck in question are jointly and severally liable to pay the damages. Interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation has been awarded on the amount awarded.
4. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellant insurance company has filed this appeal. The claimant-respondent No. 1 has, on the other hand, filed a cross-objection praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the deceased Bhagwandas was a gratuitous passenger on the truck and as such no claim for compensation could have been awarded for the death of a gratuitous passenger in the case. It has been urged that there is no evidence placed on record as to what goods, if any, the deceased was carrying on the truck. In the circumstances, the deceased cannot be regarded as travelling in the capacity of an owner of the goods for the safe carriage of the goods, so as to be covered by the Full Bench decision in Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru 1987 ACJ1 (MP), which lays down that an insurance company is liable to cover the risk of a hirer/agent or his employee travelling with the goods in a goods vehicle under proviso (ii) of clause (b) of Section 95 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as a passenger earned for reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment.
6. The contention of the learned counsel that the deceased Bhagwandas was a gratuitous passenger does not bear scrutiny, as would be presently seen. In para 2 of the claim petition, it has been averred that on 2.6.1976, the driver respondent No. 3 was driving the truck from Indore to its destination Kumbhraj and that the claimant’s husband, the deceased Bhagwandas, was travelling along with the goods on the truck. In reply to this averment, the driver in his written statement has admitted that some goods belonging to the deceased were on the truck. It has also been stated that the deceased was above the cabin of the truck where he had slept without the knowledge and permission of the driver. Thus, it is an admitted position that the deceased Bhagwandas was travelling along with his goods in the truck in question. However, the driver as NAW 1 has, in para 4 of his statement, stated contrary to his written statement a patent falsehood, that the deceased was not travelling in his truck. The learned Tribunal has, in the circumstances, come to the conclusion and in my opinion, rightly that the deceased Bhagwandas was travelling along with his goods on the truck in question. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the deceased Bhagwandas was a gratuitous passenger is not borne out from the evidence on record. It must be presumed that normally the goods are carried by the goods vehicles on hire. There is no evidence on record in this case to rebut such a presumption. The driver, the owner and the insurer have, therefore, been rightly held liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant cross-objector has submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded as compensation in respect of the death of the deceased Bhagwandas is too inadequate to be called a just compensation and deserves to be enhanced appropriately. It has been submitted that the claimant widow of the deceased has examined herself as AW 1 and she has stated that the deceased had a kirana shop in the village Sanai and another in village Mrigwas and from these two shops he had earning of Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- per month. The learned Tribunal has, however, erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 200/- p.m. only.
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant in her cross-examination has stated that the deceased never paid her more than Rs. 200/-at a time and she also stated that the deceased paid her cash month to month. From this kind of statement, the learned Tribunal is said to have correctly inferred the monthly income as Rs. 200/-.
9. There is, however, no other evidence on record on the issue of the deceased’s income. Assuming the finding of the learned Tribunal that the claimant’s dependency on the income of the deceased was Rs. 100/- and that the deceased was 35 years, on these premises the computation for total loss of dependency works out to be Rs. 18,000/- apart from the compensation on account of loss of consortium which may be assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. The compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, apparently inadequate.
10. But I cannot lose sight of the fact that the minimum value of human life by way of compensation even in a case of no fault on the part of the driver has been statutorily determined by the Parliament by providing in Section 140 of the New Act as Rs. 25,000/-. This, in my opinion, must be adopted as a minimum compensation payable to the widow of the deceased irrespective of the fact that the computation for loss of dependency in a given case works out to be less than Rs. 25,000/-. By providing in Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a minimum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the loss of life resulting from motor accident, the legislative norm for minimum compensation for the loss of life has been set forth and while awarding just compensation for the death resulting from a motor accident, a computation of compensation which falls below the minimum compensation cannot be accepted as just compensation. I have taken a similar view in an earlier case, namely Ramsingh v. Sheikh Sikandar 1990 ACJ 801 (MP), on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent.
11. In view of the above discussion and having noticed Section 140 of the Act of 1988 which provides minimum compensation for the loss of human life as Rs. 25,000/-, I consider that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- would, in the circumstances of this case, be a just compensation payable to the claimant-respondent No. 1 in respect of the death of her husband, deceased Bhagwandas. The cross-objection of the claimant-respondent, therefore, deserves to be allowed in part.
12. Accordingly, this appeal of the insurance company fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. The cross-objection is partly allowed in as much as the award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified such that instead of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization as awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant-respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization from the appellant and the other respondents who are held jointly and severally liable to pay the same.
The appellant shall bear its own costs of this appeal and shall pay that of the respondent No. 1. The costs of cross-objection shall also be paid to the respondent No. 1 by the appellant. Counsel’s fee Rs. 250/-, if certified.