PARKASH VATI AND ORS. Vs. THE DELHI DAYAL BAGH DAIRY LTD.
LAWS(P&H)-1957-11-26
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 15,1957

Parkash Vati and Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Delhi Dayal Bagh Dairy Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Mehr Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a Plaintiffs' appeal from the judgment and decree, dated August 21, 1952, of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Delhi.
(2.) MOHINDER Gupta was the husband of Plaintiff No: 1 and father of Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5, of whom Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons and Plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 are his daughters. They were minor when their father Mohinder Gupta died in consequence of an accident in these circumstances. Mohinder Gupta deceased belonged to village Massorie, Meerut district of U.P. He supplied milk to the Delhi Dayal Bagh Dairy Limited, Defendant No. 1. On July 4, 1949, as usual, Mohinder Gupta was traveling in a motor vehicle of Defendant No. 1 driven by Defendant No. 2 (Gautam Dev), an employee of Defendant No. 1, from his village Massorie to New Delhi. The motor vehicle was bringing the milk supplied by Mohinder Gupta to Delhi to the premises of Defendant No. 1 for being tested, as the payment to Mohinder Gupta of the price of the milk and his commission was to be made on the basis of the test. The motor vehicle of Defendant No. 1 came into collision with a military truck between Jumna bridge and Shadhra (Delhi). In consequence Mohinder Gupta received injuries as a result of which he died on July 17, 1949. The Plaintiffs' case was that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving and handling of the motor vehicle of Defendant No. 1 by its employee Defendant No. 2. The Plaintiffs calculated, under various heads, a total damage of Rs. 3,52,000/ - to them because of the death of Mohinder Gupta, but they claimed against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Rs. I,50,0o0/ -. Defendant No. 3 is the New Great Insurance Company of India Limited and it was impleaded as a party Defendant because it had insured the motor vehicle of Defendant No. I in regard to third party risk.
(3.) THE Defendants resisted the suit but Defendant No. 2 in the end did not prosecute it and was proceeded with ex parte. So the suit was in substance resisted by Defendants Nos. 1 and 3. Defendant No. 1 denied that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of Defendant No. 2 and also denied his liability for damages in regard to the death of Mohinder Gupta on the ground that he had no business to travel on the motor vehicle. It was said by him that the amount of damages claimed was inordinately excessive. Defendant No. 3 admitting having insured the motor vehicle of Defendant No. 1 under a commercial vehicle policy, denied liability broadly on the grounds (a) that there was no privities of contract between it and the Plaintiffs who had therefore no claim against it, and (b) that under the amended Clause 3 of the Policy it was excepted from liability in a case of the present type.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.