K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) NEW India Assurance Co., Kanpur, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the Claims Tribunal, Kanpur, awarding a sum of Rs. 35,500 to the Respondents.
(2.) ON July 1, 1974, an unfortunate accident took place at about 3 p.m. on Grand Trunk Road near Kalyanpur in which a motor cyclist, namely, Dinesh collided with Ram Chandra Kushwana, a primary school teacher, as a result of which Ram Chandra Kushwana died instantaneously. One Pillai, who was an eye -witness to the accident, lodged a first information report at the police station on the same day. Smt. Ghasiti. widow of deceased, Ram Chandra Kushwana, filed a claim petition under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the maintenance of herself and four minor children who were dependent on the deceased. Dinesh, who was driving the motor cycle, as well as the New India Assurance Co., the insurer of the motor cycle, were arrayed as opposite parties to the claim petition. Dinesh did not contest the proceedings but the Appellant contested the proceedings. In the claim petition, Smt. Ghasiti asserted that her husband was a primary school teacher, who was drawing a salary of Rs. 225.25 per mensem and in addition to that he used to earn Rs. 75 per month by private tuition. He used to give the whole of his salary for running the household expenditure and spent Rs. 75 upon himself. She further asserted that her husband was going on a bicycle on the left side of the road. Dinesh was driving the motor cycle in a negligent manner. He collided with Ram Chandra, deceased, who died instantaneously. The claimant further alleged that Ram Chandra, the deceased, left the claimant, three minor sons and a minor daughter who were all dependent upon him and they were being supported by the deceased. On these allegations she claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation.
(3.) THE insurance company contested the claim and filed a written statement pleading ignorance in respect of the allegations contained in the claimant's petition. The company admitted that the motor cycle which was involved in the accident was insured by it. It, however, took a plea of contributory negligence and challenged the quantum of compensation.;