JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. All the 24 appeals and cross-objections are disposed of by this common judgment, as the claims preferred by the respective claimants arise from one and the same accident which occurred on 5.7.1983 in which 10 persons died and 14 were injured. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I), Solan and Sirmour Districts at Nahan, delivered common award on 30.6.1984.
2. The facts giving rise to the claim petitions are as follows:
On 5.7.1983 at about 8.30 a.m. several persons boarded the truck bearing registration No. UTL 6652 belonging to Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. at Kalawar. The said truck was on its way to Dak Pathar. The truck overturned near a place known as Sansar Dhara. Out of the several passengers who were travelling in the truck, Dharam Singh, Mundi Ram, Chandnu, Khushi Ram, Guman Singh, Madan Singh, Indar Singh, Rangi Lal, Dharam Singh and Dhanu Ram died instantaneously while Surat Singh and Basti Ram sustained injuries.
3. At the time of accident Kartar Singh, respondent, was driver of the truck and it was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Claims have been preferred either by the legal representatives of the deceased or by the injured for themselves for different amounts.
4. The case of the claimants is that driver Kartar Singh was driving the truck rashly and negligently and at an excessive speed due to which it became uncontrollable and dashed against a tree as a result of which it overturned and the passengers fell into a ‘khud’ adjoining the main road. Ten persons out of 35 died on the spot and the injured were shifted to Lemen Hospital (Christian Medical Hospital), Herbertpur (U.P.). They have also stated that the occupants were travelling by this truck against the payment of double travelling charges collected by the driver and conductor to the knowledge of the officers of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.
5. The Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. resisted the claim of the petitioners in the written statement. It is admitted that the truck was insured with the appellant company. The allegation of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver is denied. It is pleaded that the accident took place due to the sudden mechanical breakdown, i.e., latent defect in the vehicle at the relevant time. The check nut bolts had suddenly opened resulting in the breaking of left rear side bearing and thus, opening of wheel. The amount claimed was also contested. Additional plea was taken that the occupants were trespassers in the truck. There were standing instructions to the drivers of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. not to give lift in the truck to any stranger. The employees of the company could only be given lift and that also with the permission of the incharge of the site.
6. The driver of the truck, Kartar Singh, filed his written statements answering all the petitions. He admitted the accident but denied that he drove the truck in a rash and negligent manner. He mostly adopted the defence raised by the insurance company. Further, he stated that on 5.7.1983, he was coming from Kalawar with 4/5 employees of the company, when on the way he was stopped by 30 to 35 persons who wanted lift as they stated that they were going to Paonta to attend the case in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Collector 1st Grade. On his showing inability they became furious and threatened him with dire consequences. They entered the truck forcibly and under threat he had to drive the vehicle. According to his statement, had he not acceded to their order, they would have harmed him bodily and as such they were trespassers. The insurance company resisted the claims of all the petitioners. Their defence was that the vehicle was being plied under private carrier permit and was a goods vehicle and the same was not covered for carrying passengers under the policy of the insurance and the permit. It was also alleged that the insured had unilaterally altered the risk by carrying passengers in a private carrier goods vehicle. The total liability of the insurance company was not more than Rs. 1,50,000/- in any case. The amount of compensation claimed was also contested.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 22.11.1983 settled the following issues:
(1) Whether the deceased/injured was travelling as unauthorised passenger in the vehicle aforesaid insured with respondent No. 4? OPR-4
(2) In case issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, whether respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay compensation claimed?
OPR-4
(3) Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged in reply of respondent No. 4? OPR-4
(4) Whether the liability of insurance company does not exceed Rs. 1,50,000/-in case of accident of several persons including injured and expired therein as alleged in para 31 of the reply? OPR-4
(5) Whether petitioners are the dependants entitled to claim compensation under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? OPP
(6) Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, Kartar Singh, in respect of track bearing registration No. UTL 6652 belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2? OPP
(7) If issue Nos. 5 and 6 are decided in favour of the petitioners to what amount of compensation they are entitled and the extent and in what proportion and from whom? OPP
(8) Whether the deceased was illegal occupant termed as trespasser in reply of respondent No. 3? OPR-3
(9) Whether the accident occurred due to the latent defect in the vehicle as alleged in reply of respondent Nos. 1 to 3? OPR
(10) Whether the respondent No. 3 boarded the vehicle, i.e., deceased and injured in the abovesaid truck without authority of employers, respondent Nos. 1 and 2. If so, what is its effect?
OPR-1 and 2
(10A) Whether the insurance company, respondent No. 4, is not liable for the payment of compensation because of the vehicle No. UTL 6652 involved in the accident being a private carrier and not covered under the policy of insurance to carry passengers, as alleged? OPR-4
(10B) In case petitioners are held entitled to the payment of compensation, whether insurance company, respondent No. 4, is not liable to pay any part thereof under Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act? OPR-4
8. The parties led evidence and after hearing them, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal answered all the issues in favour of the claimants and against the appellant company. The conclusions were as follows:
(1) That the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by driver Kartar Singh.
(2) That the passengers were not unauthorised or illegal occupants of the truck but they were carried in the vehicle for hire and reward and the said fact was within the knowledge of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. which failed to take effective steps.
(3) That the insurance company was liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 in toto in respect of this accident irrespective of the number of persons involved in the accident.
9. The claimants in each case were entitled to compensation to be paid by the insurance company and owner of the truck jointly and severally.
10. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. felt aggrieved by the judgment and hence had filed First Appeal Nos. 176, 177, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191 and 192 of 1984.
11. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. feeling aggrieved against the award of compensation filed First Appeal Nos. 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 and 221 of 1984 respectively. The claimants felt dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, have also filed cross-objections in some cases.
12. In the appeals preferred by the insurance company four grounds were raised. According to it, the vehicle being a private carrier was being plied for hire and reward for carrying passengers; secondly, the vehicle was being driven by flagrant violation of the terms of the permit which did not authorise the truck to be plied in Himachal Pradesh; thirdly, the liability in respect of such passengers carried in the vehicle at the time of accident was not covered under the insurance policy and fourthly, that in fact 10 persons died in the accident and as such the insurance company could not be made liable beyond Rs. 15,000 per head.
13. In support of the grounds raised by the insurance company, Mr. Chhabil Dass, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance upon Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC); Joginder Singh v. Pushpa Rani 1987 ACJ 788 (P&H); Omana v. David 1987 ACJ 905 (Kerala); Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Hirabai Vithal Nikam 1988 ACJ 494 (Bombay); and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma 1992 ACJ 1 (Karnataka).
14. These submissions have been vehemently opposed by Mr. K.D. Sood, Mr. S.S. Mittal and Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj. They submit that the insurance company is liable under Section 2 (i) of the insurance policy, Exh. RX. The insurance company did not prove its case despite the fact that onus to prove issue Nos. 2, 4, 10-A and 10-B was on it. We propose to examine these submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
15. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has found that the insurance company has not proved that the deceased and the injured were gratuitous passengers in the truck. Passengers were being carried for hire and reward in the truck by the driver. The insurance company has failed to prove the fact that on the date of contract of insurance, the insured vehicle was expressly or implicitly covered by a permit to carry any passengers for hire and reward. The permit has not been produced by the company. Therefore, there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that the permit had prohibited carrying of passengers for hire and reward.
16. Claimant Surat Singh, PW 2, has stated in his statement that all passengers boarded the truck with the consent of the driver in the presence of site incharge of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. at the site. He states that the conductor and driver of the truck used to charge Re. 1/- for coming and going in between the site and Khodri Majri. He then stated to have paid Re. 0.50 as fare. According to him, it was the daily routine of the driver and conductor of the said truck to the knowledge of the officers of the company. It has also come in his evidence that there is no vehicular traffic in between Khodri Majri and Kalawar. The statement of this witness is also supported by injured Basti Ram, PW 3. Their statements have not been rebutted either by the driver or the conductor of the truck. They have not been cross-examined on this aspect by the insurance company. The insurance company has also not placed the route permit of the vehicle before the court. In case the insurance company wanted to get out of this liability, it was for it to prove satisfactorily that the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms of the permit.
17. The claimants and Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. have relied upon Section II of the policy, Exh. RX, which relates to third parties. The clause relied on is extracted in full:
Section II. Liability to third parties.- (1) Subject to the limits of liability the company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant’s costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of-
(i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the motor vehicle.
18. It was submitted that the wording of clause 1 is wide enough to cover all risks including injuries to the passengers. This, according to the learned counsel, would include legal liability to pay for risk to passengers. The policy also provides for insurance of risks which are not covered under Section 95 of the Act by stipulating payment of extra premium. These clauses would themselves indicate that what was intended to be covered under clauses 1 and 1 (i) is the risk required to be covered under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The insurance company has not even proved route permit of the vehicle, therefore, it can legitimately be said that in case it had been placed by the company on the record of the case, it would have gone against it. It has come in the evidence that there was no vehicular traffic in between Khodri Majri and site of the company and the truck(s) of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. was the only available transport for the travellers. In these circumstances, the decisions cited by Mr. Chhabil Dass are not relevant at all.
19. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi’s case, 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), the Apex Court while dealing with the case of vicarious liability of the master and servants held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the servant in the course of employment, the master was also held liable. The owner of the vehicle was only insured to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- in respect of injury to the passenger and the liability of the insurance company was restricted up to the insured amount. In the present case it is not disputed that the liability of the insurance company was to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the liability of the insurance company is to the extent of Rs. 15.000/- per death is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Motor Owners’ Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi 1981 ACJ 507 (SC). In that case the Supreme Court held that the expression ‘any one accident’ used in Section 95 (2) (a) admits of two meanings. In the context of the purpose of the Act it signifies as many accidents as number of persons injured in an accident and limit of compensation covered under the insurance policy extends to each claimant. Therefore, the insurance company is held liable to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- in each case.
20. The submission of Mr. K.D. Sood based on decisions like Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satyanath Hazarika 1989 ACJ 685 (Gauhati); Bhagwandas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1990 ACJ 495 (MP), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha Rani 1990 ACJ 785 (HP); Bhagwan Das v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1991 ACJ 1137 (MP); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben 1993 ACJ 673 (Gujarat); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamalabai 1994 ACJ 519 (Bombay); and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puni Devi 1995 ACJ 486 (HP), are quite justified. The crux of these decisions is that insurance company is liable for the payment of compensation.
21. The result, therefore, is that the finding of the Tribunal against the insurance company in these cases is quite justified and is, therefore, confirmed.
22. The insurance company filed several Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 640, 641, 642, 644, 645, 646, 647, 649, 650, 651, 652 and 655 of 1985 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to lead further evidence in the case. In these applications it is alleged that the accident had occurred in the territory of Himachal Pradesh. After a long search, it was found that permit No. P.Pu.C. 4347 was issued on 27.10.1980 by the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, as a public carrier vehicle which was valid from 16.10.1980 to 15.10.1985 and the permitted route of operation was all U.P. except hill routes. As such, there was no such permit issued with regard to truck No. UTL 6652 for plying in the territory of Himachal Pradesh. It is stated in the application that Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, may be allowed to be examined as witness on behalf of the appellant company. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. filed reply stating therein that the applicant company has not made out any case for the production of additional evidence at this belated stage when it had full opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal. It is further stated that accident occurred near Sansar Dhara on project road leading to Kalawar Works site which is neither regular hill route nor public road. The said road was constructed by the U.P. Government Project Authority for the project works which were assigned to the answering company. It is further asserted that the applicant took no steps to summon the road permit from the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, at the time of trial of the claim petitions.
23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the insurance company had failed to produce the permit before the Tribunal during the trial of the claim petitions. It had voluntarily closed its evidence without producing the witness or the copy of the permit from the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun. The applicant cannot be permitted to lead the evidence at this belated stage especially when the company has been held liable to indemnify the insured for the payment of the compensation. The applicant remained negligent in not examining its witnesses during the trial of the claim petitions. Therefore, these applications are dismissed.
24. The second batch of the appeals has been preferred by Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and the driver Kartar Singh jointly. The appellants have challenged the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver Kartar Singh negligent in driving the truck. It is also stated that the occupants forcibly boarded the truck and driver Kartar Singh was compelled to drive the vehicle. The claimants have not adduced any cogent or reliable evidence to prove that the occupants of the vehicle had paid fare to the driver or the conductor and the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is also stated that the amount awarded is excessive.
25. Driver Kartar Singh appeared as RW 1. He stated that he was plying the vehicle at the relevant time in the course of his employment. According to him, the occupants including the deceased had forcibly boarded the truck contrary to the instructions already issued by the company prohibiting any person other than the employees of the company to be carried in the above-said truck. He states that besides other occupants, some policemen also boarded the vehicle. In his cross-examination he admits that the distance between the place of the site incharge of the company from the place where the occupants boarded the truck is about 100 to 150 yards and from that place to the police post it is 50 yards only. He also admits that he did not lodge any report regarding the forcible occupation of the truck by the passengers to his employers or in the police post. He denies having charged any fare from either of the passengers.
26. Priyush Chandarar Dhadhi, RW 5, is the Assistant Accountant of the company. In his examination-in-chief he states that he is empowered to issue instructions in respect of internal arrangement of the company. He also attempted to prove the issuance of instructions by the company, Exhs. R-3 and R-4, to the drivers working at their vehicles. Admittedly, the said instructions purported to be in the handwriting and issued by S.K. Davey, Assistant Chief Engineer. S.K. Davey was not produced nor any reason had been assigned as to why he could not be produced by the company. These documents were filed by the company at the late stage and the Tribunal is right in holding that the documents having not been duly proved for want of production of primary evidence, hence they could not be taken into consideration. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he came to know that driver Kartar Singh had allowed certain passengers besides two policemen to travel by their truck contrary to the instructions. He also admits that neither he reported this matter to his head office nor he initiated criminal proceedings against the driver. Further, the services of the driver were also not terminated for his negligence. It has also come in his evidence that driver Kartar Singh told him about the forcible occupation of the truck by the passengers after about a month from the date of accident, but even then he did not take any action against the policemen or the other occupants nor lodged any report regarding the threats given by them at the time of boarding the truck.
27. On the other hand, injured Surat Singh and Basti Ram, PW 2 and PW 3, have categorically stated that they were the passengers in the truck along with others. They boarded the truck with the consent of the driver in the presence of the site incharge of the company. The driver and the conductor used to charge Re. 1/- to and fro for a distance in between the site of the company and village Khodri Majri and it was the daily routine of the driver and conductor of the truck to the knowledge of the officers of the company to give lifts to persons and to charge the fare. In their cross-examination they have categorically denied that no fare was charged and the occupants had forcibly boarded the truck. Both these witnesses had sustained injuries in the aforesaid accident. Their statements are quite satisfactory and reliable. The appellant company has miserably failed to discharge the onus by leading cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the drivers were prohibited to give lift to the persons other than their employees. The claimants have proved on record that there is no vehicular traffic in between Khodri Majri and the site of the business of the company. It is unbelievable that a truck driver who was in the course of his employment would allow any person to travel in his vehicle without any charges. It is also hard to accept the version of driver Kartar Singh that the occupants had forcibly and under threat boarded the truck especially when two policemen also boarded the truck and no complaint was lodged by the driver to this effect to the incharge of the company or the police post nor he requested the policemen sitting inside the truck to take immediate action against those persons. The appellant has not even cared to produce the conductor to support its case that no fare was charged from the occupants. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court is absolutely correct and proper after the appraisal of the evidence on record.
28. The claimants have also satisfactorily proved on record that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver Kartar Singh. He was driving the truck at a high speed due to which it became uncontrollable and dashed against a tree resulting in overturning of the truck and throwing the passengers into the ‘khud’ adjoining the main road. No suggestion was put to the injured witnesses, PWs 2 and 3, on the aspect of this case. However, a suggestion was put to them that the accident occurred due to sudden opening of check nut bolts and consequent breaking of left rear side bearing and thus opening of wheels. The appellant company has failed to prove that the defect in the truck could not be prevented in spite of all reasonable care and caution which it took for the maintenance of the vehicle. Driver Kartar Singh has also deposed that he was driving the ill-fated truck for the last 6 months continuously and on the fateful day he got checked up its parts including its pressure brake but could not find any defect in the morning before putting the vehicle on the road. In his cross-examination, he states that truck was checked by the mechanic about a week prior to the date of accident when it was kept there for general maintenance and general check-up. He has also admitted that the road at the site of the accident is about 26 ft. wide. The evidence of Jaman Singh, RW 4, working as mechanic in H.P. PWD, Paonta Sahib, is not at all reliable because he has been making contrary statements and his report, Exh. R-2, is of no assistance to the appellant company.
29. R.K. Mankad, RW 3, is a mechanical automobile engineer practising as an insurance surveyor and loss assessor at Dehradun. He proved his report, Exh. RW-3/A. He mechanically examined the vehicle after it was brought from the spot of accident to Khodri Majri near police post on 9.7.1983. According to him, the left rear wheel assembly along with the axle shaft had come out which resulted in the instant accident. This report has rightly not been relied upon by the Tribunal because it merely depends upon the photographs and not on the actual examination of the vehicle on the spot. Further, he examined the vehicle after the same was repaired. The learned Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the evidence on record. The appellant has failed to show by positive evidence that the vehicle was duly checked and accident occurred in spite of reasonable care and caution taken by the company in maintaining the vehicle. The appellant company had been plying this vehicle in the territory of Himachal Pradesh since the project work of the company had been initiated without permit. Thus, we find no fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in holding the driver Kartar Singh guilty for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and further holding the appellant company liable for the negligence of its driver in the discharge of his official duties and causing the accident. Further, the company is also found negligent in not maintaining its vehicle properly as has been held by the Tribunal.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 176 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 88 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 203 of 1984
30. In this case claim petition was moved by the legal representatives of deceased Dharam Singh who died in the accident. They are the widow, sons and mother of the deceased. They claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Sukha Devi, PW 1, is the widow of the deceased. She states that her husband was an agriculturist and his agricultural income was to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per year. The deceased at the time of accident was about 35 years. The entire family was dependent upon the income of the deceased from the land. Revenue record consisting of jama-bandi, Exh. PA and khasra girdawari, Exh. PB, were also filed. A perusal of the revenue record would go to show that the deceased owned 17 bighas, 12 biswas of land under his self-cultivation and in 15 biswas of land ginger was sown. She states that there is none to cultivate the land after the death of her husband and villagers have helped her in cultivating the same. In the claim petition, she asserted that the annual agricultural income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/-. She is an illiterate, simpleton and rustic lady. From her evidence the major income of the deceased was from the land being an agriculturist. Admittedly, from the evidence the deceased was an agriculturist whose fixed income is not proved. The Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 325/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,900/- per annum from the land. The claimants have stated that keeping in view the holding of land and the size of the family, the annual income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs. 7,200/-per annum. They have also claimed 18 years of multiplier instead of 15 years as done by the Tribunal. They also prayed for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in their cross-objections. Claimants have produced Rati Ram, PW 4, who besides being an agriculturist and shopkeeper is a contractor with Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. He also executed Government of U.P. works on work order. According to him, deceased used to work with him as labourer to supplement his income and he used to pay Rs. 10 per day to him. Keeping in view the evidence on record, we are of the view that monthly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 400/- per month, i.e., Rs. 4,800/- per annum which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Out of this amount the deceased must be spending about Rs. 800/- per annum as his personal expenses. Thus, the dependency of the surviving members of the family comes to Rs. 4,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has accepted the figure 15 as multiplier which, in our opinion, is correct. The compensation would accordingly work out to Rs. 60,000/-. To this Rs. 3,000/- is added as conventional amount. Thus, the claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs. 63,000/-. The Tribunal has allowed the interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of award till payment. The Supreme Court in Rukmani Devi v. Om Prakash 1991 ACJ 3 (SC), allowed interest at 15 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation. There is no reason why interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum should not be allowed in the present case. We hence direct that interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum should be paid to the claimants right from the date of application, i.e., 20.8.1983 till payment/deposit. The claimants shall get the amount of compensation in equal share as directed by the Tribunal and shall be paid jointly and severally by the insurance company and the owner of the truck, Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 177 of 1984 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 199 of 1984
31. Mundi Ram died in the accident. The claim petition was filed by his widow and three minor children. He was a young man possessing sound health and aged 40 years at the time of accident. He was a barber by profession and he along with his brother was doing the work of his co-villagers in about 50 houses as also the residents of village Kalawar in about 100 houses. His widow, Ashadi Devi, appeared as PW 1. She says that 16 kilograms of wheat or maize per harvest crop used to be given by every house of villages Kalawar and Kalatha in lieu of the services rendered by the deceased. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. Claimants filed copies of jamabandis, Exhs. PA, PB and PC, which would go to show that the deceased was possessing only 15 biswas of land to the extent of his share. This shows that the family was entirely dependent on the income of the deceased received from barber profession. In her cross-examination she has admitted that there were no other barbers in the aforesaid villages except the deceased and his brother Rangi Lal who also expired in the same accident. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. Considering that the deceased and his brother were receiving wheat and maize to the extent of 16 kilograms per harvest, they were getting about 24 quintals of maize and 24 quintals of wheat per annum. The witness hails from village and is a simpleton and an illiterate lady. She has categorically stated that she does not know the prevailing market price of the crop. The Tribunal has fixed the average value of the aforesaid crop at Rs. 120/- per quintal and annual income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 2,880/-. The deceased has left behind his widow and three minor children. The deceased had been approximately spending Rs. 880/- per annum towards his personal expenses and leaving Rs. 2,000/- per annum for the surviving members of the family. The multiplier of 13 is just and reasonable. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to Rs. 2,000 x 13 = Rs. 26,000/- as compensation. To this amount a sum of Rs. 3,000/- is added as the conventional amount making the total compensation to the extent of Rs. 29,000/-which all the claimants shall share equally. However, claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the petition, i.e., 22.8.1983 till realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 180 of 1984 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 200 of 1984
32. Madan Singh died in the accident on 5.7.1983. He was a young man possessing sound health at the relevant time. Besides being an agriculturist, he also used to earn his livelihood as a labourer. His widow and minor children filed the claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged 30 years. Jainti Devi appeared as witness and stated that the deceased used to cultivate ginger, maize and wheat as cash crops. Revenue records consisting of jamabandis, Exhs. PA, PB and PC, would go to show that the deceased had nominal portion of land. She has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that the deceased used to work as a labourer only and also used to cultivate the land. According to her testimony, after the death of her husband, she has been cultivating the land with the help of the villagers. She is an illiterate and rustic lady and does not possess any account of income derived from the cash crops. However, her statement that the deceased used to work as labourer at daily wage of Rs. 10/- has remained unrebutted. The fact that he used to lend help in cultivation of the land also remains unrebutted. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 300/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,600/- per annum. The Tribunal has also concluded that the deceased used to spend Rs. 2,500/- per year for the maintenance of the surviving members of the family and the rest of the amount used to be spent by him upon his personal expenses. Multiplier of 16 has been used which, according to us, is reasonable. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is to the extent of Rs. 43,000/- to be shared by the claimants equally and the same appears to be just and reasonable to us. However, claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application, i.e., 20.8.1983 till realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 182 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 89 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 201 of 1984
33. In this case Chandnu was the passenger who died in the accident. At the time of accident he was working as a labourer, besides being an agriculturist. The claim petition was filed by his widow, three minor daughters and mother claiming Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation. Debo Devi, PW 1, widow of the deceased, has stated that the income of the deceased from selling ginger, maize and wheat and other crops used to be Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per year. At the time of the accident, he was hale and hearty and aged 40 years. She has not stated that the deceased also used to work as labourer. In her pleadings she had alleged that the income of the deceased from agriculture was to the tune of Rs. 700/- per month. However, a suggestion was put to her in her cross-examination that agriculture income was sufficient to maintain the family. The Tribunal has assessed the agriculture income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 400/- per month and out of this Rs. 150/- was the expense incurred by the deceased on his personal upkeep and remaining amount of Rs. 250/- per month has been left as dependency of the surviving members. Multiplier of 12 has been applied. The claimants have claimed in the cross-objections Rs. 7,200/-per annum and out of this amount Rs. 5,000 per annum have been claimed as contribution to the maintenance of the family. They have also claimed multiplier of 16 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the annual income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 4,800/- per year and out of that Rs. 1,600/- per year must have been spent by him towards his personal expenses. The remaining amount of Rs. 3,200 per year is the dependency of the surviving members of the family. The multiplier of 12 needs to be increased to 14 in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the present claimants are entitled to Rs. 3,200/- x 14 = Rs. 44,800/-. To this amount Rs. 3,000/- has to be added as conventional amount. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the amount of Rs. 47,800/-. They are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of institution of the claim petition, i.e., 20.8.1983 till the date of realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 183 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 183 of 1984 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 204 of 1984
34. Khushi Ram died in the accident. The claimants are his widow and minor daughter. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged between 45 and 50 years. He was an agriculturist and was also doing the work of a labourer. The claimants have claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in the claim petition. Narayani, PW 1, placed on record copies of jamabandis, Exhs. PW-l/A and PW-l/B, besides that of khasra girdawari, Exh. PW-l/C, indicating that the deceased was an agriculturist. In her statement she stated that her husband used to cultivate the land sowing ginger crop, etc. and earning an annual income to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-to Rs. 30,000/-. The factum of the deceased being an agriculturist has not been disputed by the respondents. In the claim petition, the claimants have confined the income to Rs. 500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 6,000/- per annum, but in the evidence it has been stated by PW 1 that the income of the deceased was between Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- per annum. There is no evidence on record to show the fixed income of the deceased. The deceased was owner of about 30 bighas of cultivable land and 28 bighas of uncultivable classification, besides 1 bigha 31/2 biswas was under the cultivation of ginger crop. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased by guesswork at Rs. 300/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,600/- per annum. The multiplier of 10 has been used in the present case. The claimants have claimed income of Rs. 600/- per month in the cross-objections. They have also claimed multiplier of 15 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
35. Looking to the evidence on record we are of the view that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs. 3,600/- per annum is quite just and reasonable. Out of this amount, Rs. 1,200/- per annum is deducted towards the personal expenses incurred by the deceased, thus leaving Rs. 2,400/- per annum to the dependency of the surviving members of the family. We feel that the multiplier of 10 is on the lower side. We have perused the G.I.C. guidelines for compromising third party claims of the insurance company. According to the guidelines, multiplier factor of 12 in the age group of 45 to 50 years has been prescribed.
Following these guidelines in the present case, the multiplier of 12 is applied. Thus, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 28.800/-. To this Rs. 3,000/- as conventional amount has been added, thus making the total compensation awardable to the claimants to be Rs. 31,800/-. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e., 18.8.1983 till realisation/ deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 184 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 91 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 202 of 1984
36. Guman Singh died in the accident. Claim petition was filed by his widow, daughter and mother claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Hari Devi appeared as PW 1. She states that deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per year from agriculture. She also states that he was earning Rs. 10/- per day as labourer. She filed copies of the revenue record which would go to show that he was owning 1/3rd share of uncultivable land to the extent of 1 bigha 14 biswas only. In the claim petition, the income from agriculture has been stated to be Rs. 500/- per month, i.e., Rs. 6,000/-per year. There is no direct evidence about the fixed income of the deceased from agriculture nor the revenue record indicates that ginger crop was being cultivated by the deceased in his land. Rati Ram, PW 4, categorically stated that the deceased was working with him as labourer at the time of Rs. 10/- per day. The claimants have claimed Rs. 6,000/- per annum and at the time of the accident his age wag about 30 years and the multiplier of 20 ought to have been applied in the present case. Besides, they have claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the petition till payment.
37. Looking to the evidence on record, the income of the deceased can be reasonably assessed at Rs. 10/- per day being a labourer working with Rati Ram, PW 4. Thus, the annual income of the deceased was Rs. 3,600/-. Out of this amount, the deceased must have been spending Rs. 1,200/- per annum towards his personal expenses thus leaving Rs. 2,400/- per annum towards the contribution for the dependency of the surviving family members. The age of the deceased at the time of accident was stated to be between 25 and 30 years though there is no evidence on record about the exact date of birth. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 in this case. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 36,000/-. To this amount Rs. 3,000/- is added as conventional amount, making the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,000/- to be shared by the claimants equally. The claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e., 20.8.1983 till the date of realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 185 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 92 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 195 of 1984
38. Indar Singh was an occupant of the ill-fated truck on the day of the accident who died in the same on 5.7.1983. The claimants are his widow and four minor children. They filed the claim petition. They claimed an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation in the claim petition. In their claim petition they stated that the deceased used to earn Rs. 500 per month from agriculture and Rs. 650/- per month from labour work. Kaushalya Devi, PW 1, is the widow. She states that as a labourer in the company, the deceased was getting Rs. 8.25 per day. Besides this, her husband was also earning an amount varying from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per year from the crop of ginger sown in the land possessed by him. The total land owned by the deceased is 5 bighas under cultivation and 5 bighas 5 biswas uncultivable. She then states that there is no person in the family to do the agricultural work after the death of her husband as she has got minor children only. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 300/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,600/- per year. Multiplier of 15 was taken as the age of the deceased was 26 years. The claimants claimed in the cross-objections the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per annum and multiplier of 20. They have also claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till payment. On the evidence of the parties, we are satisfied that the income assessed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and the multiplier of 15 is also correct in view of the G.I.C. guidelines for compromising third party claims and the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is also just and reasonable. However, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e., 18.8.1983 till realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 186 of 1984 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 198 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 96 of 1985
39. Dhanu Ram had died in the accident. The claimant is his son. At the time of the death Dhanu Ram was aged 45 years. The deceased was working as labourer, besides being an agriculturist. He owned 22 bighas 16 biswas of land out of which 14 bighas 2 biswas had been transferred by way of mortgage. The claimant had claimed total Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation in his claim petition. Claimant Nain Singh appeared as PW 3. He states that the deceased was his father whose income was only from agricultural crop like ginger. According to him, the deceased used to earn about Rs. 11,000/-per year from selling the ginger crop. The evidence of the claimant is at variance with the income detailed in the claim petition.
From the bald statement of the claimant fixed income of the deceased could not be ascertained. The Tribunal fixed the income of Rs. 300/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,600/- per year. The multiplier of 12 was used. The family dependency has been assessed to the extent of Rs. 1,200/- per annum. The claimant was awarded Rs. 14,400/- + Rs. 3,000/-as conventional amount. Thus, total amount of Rs. 17,400/- was awarded as compensation with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the award till payment. The claimant has filed cross-objections in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 198 of 1984 claiming annual income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per annum and his contribution to the estate to be Rs. 3,000/- per annum. Multiplier of 15 has been claimed. Interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the petition till payment has also been claimed.
40. We find that the family consists of four units and the claimant is the only surviving major son. The deceased would have been spending Rs. 1,800/- per annum qua his personal expenses and Rs. 1,800/-per annum would be the dependency of the surviving member of the deceased. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 21,600/- as compensation by applying multiplier of 12. To this amount an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as the conventional figure is added making the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant to the extent of Rs. 24,600/-. However, the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e., 22.8.1983 till the date of realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 187 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 93 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 196 of 1984
41. Rangi Lal had died in the accident leaving behind his widow, two sons, one daughter and mother. He was a barber by profession and he along with his brother was doing such work of his co-villagers in about 50 houses as also the residents of the village Kalawar in about 100 houses. At the time of accident he was keeping sound health and his age was 36 years. Claimant Shyama Devi, PW 1, states that 16 kilograms of wheat or maize per harvest used to be given by every house of villages Kalatha and Kalawar in lieu of the services rendered by the deceased. The claimants made a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- in their petition. Jamabandis, Exhs. PA, PB & PC, were also filed showing that the deceased was possessing only 15 biswas of land to the extent of his share. The evidence would go to show that the deceased and his family were entirely dependent on their income from the profession of the barber. In her cross-examination, she admits that there were no other members in the abovesaid villages except the deceased and his late brother Mundi Ram who had also expired in the same accident. The Tribunal is right in holding that the income could not be assessed in terms of money. The Tribunal fixed the average value of the crops used to be received by the deceased at Rs. 120/-per quintal and the income of the deceased was assessed to the extent of Rs. 2,880/-per annum. The amount spent towards the dependency of the surviving members of the family has been fixed at Rs. 2,057/- and multiplier of 15 was used. Thus, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 30,855/- + Rs. 3,000/- as conventional figure making the total amount of award to the tune of Rs. 33,855/- with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of the award till payment. The claimants have claimed Rs. 6,000/- per annum in their cross-objections and multiplier of 18, besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition till its payment.
42. We have considered the evidence on record and find that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same is maintained. However, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e., 22.8.1983 till the date of realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 188 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 87 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 221 of 1984
43. Dharam Singh died in the accident on 5.7.1983. The claimants are his widow and minor children. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years and was doing the work of a labourer, besides being an agriculturist. The claimants made a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- in their claim petition. The claimants filed jamabandi, Exh. PA and copy of khasra girckiwari, Exh. PB, which would go to show that the deceased was owner of 22 bighas 12 biswas of land. In their claim petition, they claimed agricultural income of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 500/- per month. Claimant Jhano Devi appeared as PW 1. She states that the deceased used to sell ginger crop and earn a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per year. There is no other evidence on record to prove the annual income of the deceased nor there is any other evidence to show that he used to work as labourer. There is a variance about income of the deceased pleaded in the claim petition and the evidence of PW 1. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 300/- per month, i.e., Rs. 3,600/- per year. Out of this amount Rs. 1,000/- was deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and rest of the amount to the extent of Rs. 2,600/- was fixed for the dependency of the surviving members of the family. Multiplier of 14 was applied.
44. Claimants have claimed Rs. 6,000/-per annum as the income of the deceased in their cross-objections and multiplier of 18, besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. However, we find that the award of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and justified on the basis of the evidence on record. The claimants are entitled to Rs. 39,400/- as compensation in equal shares as has been held by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e., 20.8.1983 till the date of realisation/deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 191 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 94 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 205 of 1984
45. Claimant Basti Ram was travelling in the ill-fated truck from Kalawar to Khodri Mazri for the purpose of attending the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib. He sustained grievous injuries including compound fracture in the left leg which is of permanent nature and on account of the accident he has become unfit to move and do physical work. He claimed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation in his claim petition. The claimant appeared as PW 1 and stated that at the time of accident he was about 18 years of age. He is an agriculturist-cum-labourer. In his evidence, he states that he sustained injuries simple as also grievous one on his left leg and he remained admitted in Lemen Hospital (Christian Mission Hospital) at Herbertpur (U.P.), for 2 months. He then states that he is unable to walk even with the use of crutches for more than a furlong or two. He also deposed that he has become permanently disabled due to the aforesaid accident. He is unmarried. According to his testimony, he used to assist his father in agricultural pursuits.
46. Dr. Satow, PW 4, has been examined. He is a highly qualified doctor. He has passed F. A.C.S. and D.A.B.S. from Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, A.C.S. and American Board of Surgery respectively. He is doing the regular surgery since the year 1955. He states that at the initial stage, the claimant was under the treatment of Dr. P. Claudius of the Christian Mission Hospital, Herbertpur. Thereafter, the claimant has been under his treatment. He deposes that on examination of the claimant he found that the claimant has suffered comminuted fracture of the left femur and laceration of the scalp. Patient remained as indoor patient in the hospital and had been put under traction for the treatment of the injuries sustained by him. According to him, prior to the treatment of the claimant, the patient had already been operated upon by his predecessor. The claimant was put under X-ray on 7.11.1983. He produced skiagram, Exh. P-4/A, which would go to show that the left leg of the claimant was shortened by about 3/4″. He opined that from the examination of the treatment given to the claimant, his skiagram and the previous record, the injury suffered by the claimant is of a partial permanent nature. He then states that the claimant is unable to carry on normal work nor he can even walk normally except with the help of crutches to cover the distance. He then states that definite opinion can only be given after about 1 or 1 1/2 years’ continuous treatment accorded to the claimant.
47. This witness states that the claimant paid him Rs. 1,160/- from 5.7.1983 to 2.9.1983 and for future period of treatment, the patient would be compelled to spend Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1,000/- and in bone graft, operation is required to be undertaken and then the expenditure would be added by Rs. 1,000/- more. According to his opinion, the degree of permanent disability of the claimant is to the maximum 15 per cent at this stage, i.e., on 24.4.1984. He also states that apart from the medicines provided from the hospital for which the claimant made the charges, the latter did make purchases from outside at his own expenses. He has also proved the receipts (Exhs. PW-4/A-1 to PW-4/A-11). In his cross-examination he has admitted that there is an improvement in the condition of the claimant and if the treatment continues, he would definitely further improve. According to him, the continuous treatment would positively cure the claimant but due to shortening of leg there would remain some partial permanent disability to the extent of 5 per cent. Receipts (Exh. PW-4/A-1 to Exh. PW-4/A-9) pertain to an expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,065/-spent by the claimant.
48. Claimant Basti Ram, PW 1, has stated that he has spent about Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- on his personal treatment in respect of the injuries sustained by him as he remained admitted for more than two months in a private hospital since the date of the accident. During this period, he was not only operated upon but also time and again put under X-ray, etc. The receipts (Exh. PW-4/A-1 to Exh. PW-4/A-9) pertain to the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,065 on medicines alone. The claimant is a matriculate and belongs to an agriculturist family. His father owned 33 bighas of land which is proved by producing the revenue records such as jamabandi, Exh. P-1 and khasra girdawari, Exh. P-2. During his illness his relations and helpers must have remained by his side in the above hospital. Apart from the medical expenses incurred by him, the claimant was also forced to incur expenditure not only for his personal maintenance but also for the lodging and boarding of his helpers. At the time of the decision of the claim petition he was still under treatment. There is no cross-examination on the material aspect of the matter by the appellant. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence found the claimant entitled to Rs. 6,000/- having been spent by the claimant on his personal treatment. The claimant was also found entitled to the additional sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards the medical expenses for further treatment. Thus, he has been awarded Rs. 8,000/- in respect of expenses on his treatment.
49. So far as the pecuniary loss is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed Rs. 250/-per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,500 as pecuniary loss of his possible income for a period of 2 1/2 years on the basis of the statement of the doctor.
50. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the claimant supported by doctor awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for non-pecuniary loss on the basis of the guesswork. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 35,500/- has been awarded to the claimant to be paid by the insurance company and the owner jointly and severally. Interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of the award till payment was also granted, besides costs of Rs. 500/- to the claimant.
51. The claimant has filed cross-objections claiming therein Rs. 65,500/- for medical expenses, loss of income and non-pecuniary loss. Besides, he has claimed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
52. We find from the evidence that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation to the claimant and the same is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition, i.e., 25.11.1983 till the date of realisation/ deposit.
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 192 of 1984 with
Cross-objections No. 95 of 1985 and
F.A.O. (MVA) No. 197 of 1984
53. Claimant Surat Singh was travelling in the ill-fated truck from Kalawar to Khodri Mazri to attend his duty at Majri Pump House and Baghani Pump House belonging to the Irrigation Department, Paonta Sahib. In the accident he had sustained grievous injuries, i.e., compound fracture of his right arm, etc. and consequent thereto he has become permanently disabled. He claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-in his claim petition. In his statement he states that at the time of his accident his age was 21 years and he was doing the work of a labourer, besides being an agriculturist. According to his testimony, ten persons out of 35 died on the spot due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and the remaining persons including him sustained injuries. He remained admitted in a private hospital known as Sudhir Gupta Nursing Home, Dehradun, for 1 1/2 month. According to him, he had spent about Rs. 7,000/- in all for his treatment. Basti Ram, PW 3, also corroborates the testimony of the claimant having suffered injuries in the abovesaid accident due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Kartar Singh. Dr. Sudhir Gupta, a private practitioner, has appeared as PW 1. He is an Orthopaedic Surgeon having experience of 11 years. According to him, the claimant remained admitted in his nursing home with effect from 5.7.1983 to 15.7.1983 and thereafter from 6.8.1983 to 9.8.1983. Doctor further states that the claimant had suffered fracture plus dislocation of right elbow joint and compound comminuted fracture of lower end of radius and ulna bone right side. He admitted to have examined the injured last in August, 1983. Claimant was also examined in the court as a witness and he has stated that stiffness is still persisting in his right arm. According to the version of the doctor, the claimant cannot discharge his normal work with his right hand due to the injuries sustained by him throughout his life. He then states that the claimant had paid him Rs. 500/- only though he had promised to pay him later on. Doctor has proved prescription chits, Exhs. A-3 and A-5, as also medicines recorded in prescription papers, Exhs. A-1 and A-2. He has categorically deposed that the discomfort suffered by the claimant is throughout his life and due to the suffering in his right arm the claimant is not able to discharge his normal work. The injuries explained by doctor and having been suffered by the claimant were not challenged in his cross-examination.
54. The Tribunal has assessed Rs. 250/-per month as the income of the claimant. The claimant spent an amount of Rs. 144/- on 6 and 7.7.1983, according to bills, Exhs. A-1 and A-2. He remained admitted for about 15 days in the private nursing home. His right arm was operated upon. The Tribunal has found that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to show that the claimant had spent Rs. 7,000/- in all on his treatment. However, looking to the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as an expenditure incurred by the claimant. Besides this amount, additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- has also been awarded on account of pain, suffering, shock and discomfort, besides having psychological feeling regarding his permanent disability. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded to the claimant and the liability of the insurance company and the owner was fixed jointly and severally. Interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of the award till payment was also awarded, besides Rs. 300 as costs.
Cross-objections No. 95 of 1985
55. The claimant has filed cross-objections claiming Rs. 45,000/- in all as compensation, besides 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
56. As discussed above, we have examined the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the award of the Tribunal is quite just and reasonable and we maintain the same. However, the claimant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application, i.e., 25.11.1983 till the date of realisation/ deposit.
57. The insurance company shall deposit the additional amount of compensation along with interest with the Registry of the court within a period of two months from this judgment. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants in the same manner as directed by the Tribunal and the amount falling to the share of the minor claimants be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till they attain majority or otherwise ordered by this court.
58. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal would stand modified to the extent aforesaid.
59. In the circumstances of the case, the respective parties shall bear their own costs of the appeals.