H. N. Seth, J. :- - (1.) SHRIMATI Brij Kali Devi widow of deceased Amrit Lal, her children and parents of Amrit Lal have filed this appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad dated 5-12-1973.
(2.) ON behalf of the appellants, it was claimed that on 2nd of Aug. 1969 at about 4 A.M., Amrit Lal, the deceased was going on his ekka laden with vegetables and fruits to Khuldabad Mandi in the district of Allahabad. A motor truck No. BRV 4263 which was being driven rashly and negligently came from behind and dashed against the ekka with the result Amrit Lal fell down from the ekka. He came under the truck and was crushed to death. At the time of his death, Amrit Lal was about 30 years old and was earning a sum of Rs. 750/- per month by dealing in wholesale supply of vegetables and fruits. Normally, members of Amrit Lal's family lived up to the age of 80 or 85 years and his life expectancy had been cut short by about 50 years. Thus Amrit Lal would have earned an amount not less than Rs. 4,50,000/- in his lifetime. If from out of this sum, the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself be deducted and an allowance is made for unforeseen events as also for receipt of compensation in a lump sum, the claimants will in any case, be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation for the loss of Amrit Lal's life. In addition they claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental shock and physical pain suffered by the deceased and Rs. 780/- as compensation for the loss and destruction of Amrit Lal's merchandise, ekka and horse. The total claim made by the claimant thus came to Rs. 70,780/-. As the truck in question had been purchased by Ram Chand Bishan Singh, Ranchi, Bihar (respondent No. 1) under a hire purchase agreement with M/s. Fair Finance Private Ltd., Delhi (respondent No. 2) both of them were impleaded in the claim as an opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Messrs Ram Chand Bishan Chand sent a written statement by post but did not thereafter appear to contest the claim. Respondent No. 2 did not file any written statement and the case proceeded ex parte against it. Respondent No. 3 Hindusthan General Insurance Company insurer of the truck, which had been arrayed as opposite party No. 3, alone filed a written statement and contested the claim. It denied that the accident was the result of rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle. According to it, the deceased lost his life because of his own negligence. So far as the amount of compensation was concerned, the case of the company was that the deceased, at the time of his death, was about 50 years old and that his life expectancy could not be 50 years as claimed by the appellants and that the claim had been grossly exaggerated. After going through the evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the accident in question took place as the driver of Truck No. 4263 had been negligent in driving the vehicle and that the claimants were entitled to be compensated for Amrit Lal's death. The Tribunal observed that the deceased, not being an income tax payer, could not have been earning more than Rs. 400/- per month, and that his income appeared to be about Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per month. In the circumstances of the case, he could not be expected to save anything more than Rs. 50 per month. Even if his income was taken to be Rs. 400/- per month and the sum of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- spent by him for maintaining his family was deducted therefrom, his saving could in no case exceed Rs. 100/- per month. The deceased was, at the time of the accident, 32 years old and treating normal expectancy of his life as 65 years, he was expected to live for 33 years more. Calculating on this basis, he would have, during his life saved Rs. 39,600/- (100 x 12 x 33). However, as his savings could be anything between Rs. 50/- to Rs. 100/- per month and making an allowance for lump sum payment, Rs. 20,000/- would be fair amount of compensation to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased. In the result, it made an award against the respondent fixing Rs. 20,000/- along with future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum as compensation payable to the appellants.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the award made by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal before this Court. According to them, the Tribunal should have, for the death of Amrit Lal, awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- as claimed by them. They contend that the Tribunal erred in not at all adverting to their claim for Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental shock and physical pain suffered by the deceased, as also to that for Rs. 780/- for destruction of property belonging to the deceased. According to them, apart from compensation for the loss of Amrit Lal's life, they are entitled to receive Rs. 20,780/- as well under aforementioned two heads. Despite service of notice, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not put in appearance and the appeal proceeded ex parte against them. It is only the Hindusthan General Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, which has appeared before us to contest the appeal.;