Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed by Sham Lal, appellant, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (hereinafter called the Tribunal), dated July 3, 1972, whereby the claim petition under section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was partly allowed. No appeal has been filed either by the claimants -respondents, the owner of the defaulting vehicle or the insurance company.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that on August 21, 1970, at about I P.M., Manohar Lal, (now deceased) was going on his motor cycle on the G.T Road, from Rajpura side. At the junction of G.T. Road and Balmiki Road, Ambala City, he took turn and was proceeding along Balmiki Road, A Truck No. HRK -1287 (hereinafter to be called the truck) driven by Sham Lal, appellant, came from the side of Ambala Cantt. and struck against the rear side of the motor cycle being driven by Manohar Lal. The truck was being driven at a high speed. Nor the horn was blown by the appellant. As a result of the impact, Manohar Lal, was thrown on the ground and he sustained serious injuries. The accident was witnessed by Kalyan Dass, A.W. 5; Bant Lal, A.W. 6 and Kundan Lal. A.W. 4, Manohar Lal was removed to the Civil Hospital, Ambala, in an unconscious condition in the said truck where he succumbed to his injuries. A report was sent to the S.H.O. Police Station, Ambala City, by the doctor. The claim petition was filed by Shmt. Janak Dulari, widow of the deceased, Shrimati Lajwant, mother of the deceased, on her behalf as well as on behalf of Sanjeev Kumar, aged 7 months, son of the deceased, under section 110 -A of the Act, against the driver of the truck, and the owners of the truck. The General Assurance Society was also impleaded as respondent in the capacity of an insurer for the truck. The claim petition was contested by Sham Lal, appellant, as well as the owner of the truck and the insurer. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: - - 1. Whether the alleged accident resulting in the death of Manohar Lal happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Sham Lal, of vehicle No. HRK -1287. 2. What amount, if any, are the petitioners entitled as compensation and from whom? Whether respondent No. 1, Sham Lal, was driving the vehicle in question, in course of employment under respondent No. 4? If not, to what effect?
(3.) RELIEF . After the evidence had been adduced on both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Sham Lal, appellant, was employed as a Cleaner on the truck by Ajit Singh, Respondent No. 5 and the same was being driven by him at the time of the accident. According to the further findings, one Ashok Kumar was the driver of the truck, and was sitting beside Sham Lal, appellant in the truck at the relevant time. Admittedly, Ajit Singh, respondent, was the owner of the truck. According to the impugned judgment only Sham Lal, appellant, has been held liable for the accident and an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - has been awarded against him. The owners of the truck and the insurer have been exonerated of the liability. The present appeal is only on behalf of the said Sham Lal, the appellant. 3. The accident had been witnessed by three witnesses, namely, Kundan Lal, A. W. 4, Kalyan Dass A W. 5 and Bant Lal, A. W. 6. According to their consistent statements, the fatal accident occurred when Manohar Lal who was driving the motor cycle, took a turn from the G.T. Road to the new road of Chuharmajri, Ambala City. At the time of the accident, the motor cycle was going ahead and the same was hit with a strong impact by the truck from behind. It was also unambiguously stated by them that the truck was being driven at that time by Sham Lal, appellant. It was also their version that the truck at that time was being driven at a fast speed. Even after the accident the said Sham Lal, made an attempt to run away, but he was caught hold by Kundan Lal and Kalvan Dass, AWs. It is not disputed that Manohar Lal had sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident by the truck and had succumbed to the same after he had been removed to the hospital According to the postmortem report and the statement of the doctor death could be caused by accident from the vehicle. Though Sham Lal, appellant, in his statement denied that he was driving the truck at the time of the accident yet this part of his statement was rightly disbelieved by the tribunal. According to the statement of Ashok Kumar he had been employed as a driver on this truck by the owner and he had allowed Sham Lal, appellant to drive the truck without authority from the owner. According to Ajit Singh, owner of the truck, the said Sham Lal had been employed as a Cleaner on the truck and Ashok Kumar as a driver. The evidence produced on both sides leaves no manner of doubt that the fatal accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by Sham Lal, appellant. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has not seriously contested this conclusion of the tribunal. His only contention is that the amount of compensation awarded is excessive. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 is affirmed. 4. Regarding the amount of compensation, the tribunal concluded that Manohar Lal, deceased, was earning Rs. 900/ - per mensem at the time of his death and out of the same, was spending Rs 500/ - per month on the maintenance of the claimants. The age of deceased was determined at 25 years at the time of his premature death, as According to the Tribunal, he was likely to live up to the age of 60 years in normal course It was held that the claimants had suffered a total loss for 35 years, amounting to Rs. 2,10,000/ -. After giving deduction in lieu of lump sum payment and also excluding the value of two trucks which were found to have been left by the deceased and which were being run by his father, the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - against Sham Lal, appellant, only. These conclusions have been strenuously assailed not only by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, but also on behalf of the owner and the insurer of the truck.;