MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer dated April 27, 1989 by which it has awarded Rs. 1,17,400/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents No. 1 to 7. The facts of the case-giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON November 23, 1986, the deceased Umedaram was going on his motorcycle No. RJC 1591 from Mahavir Nagar, Banner to Barmer City.When he came in front of the factory of Jiwana Ram Choudhary (under construction), Nishan Truck No. RJC 1261 came from the opposite direction with an excessive speed on its wrong side and dashed against the said motorcycle, which was going on its correct side of the road. The truck was being driven by its driver Tej Singh (respondent No. 10). As a result thereof, Umedaram died on the spot and his motorcycle was badly damaged. Report was immediately lodged in the Police Station by Bega Ram P.W. 2. A case under Section 304A, I.P.C. was registered against the driver Tej Singh and investigation commenced. On March 11,1987, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer by the widow, three minor sons, one minor daughter and parents of late Umedaram for Rs. 9,95,123/- against the driver of the Truck Tej singh (respondent No. 10), owners Babulal (respondent No. 8) and Manakmal (respondent No. 9) and insurer United India Insurance Company (appellant) with the allegations, in short, that the deceased Umedaram was 33 years old at the time of the accident, he was earning Rs. 50/- per day as a mason, while he was going on his motor-cycle No. RJC 1591, Nishan Truck No. RJC 1261 came to its wrong side and dashed against the motor-cycle with an excessive speed, as a result thereof, he died on spot, he has left behind him the claimants who were wholly dependent upon him, at that time the truck was owned by Manakmal and Babulal and was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The driver Tej singh admitted in his written statement that he was driving the said truck RJC 1261, It was owned by Manakmal, accident took place and the deceased Umedarram died. The remaining allegations of the claim petition were denied. He has further averred that the deceased Umedaram was driving his motorcycle with an excessive speed on his wrong side, he had taken wine and the accident occurred due to his own negligence and carelessness. Similar in the written statement of the owner Manakmal. He has further averred that he had purchased the said truck from its previous owner Babulal. Babulal has stated in his written statement that the said truck No. RJC 1261 belonged to him and on October 7, 1985 he had sold it to Manakmal and he has expressed his ignorance about the accident. The United India Insurance Company admits in its written-statement that the accident took place, deceased Umedaram died in the accident and insurance policy of the said truck was issued with effect from November 22, 1986 in the name of its owner Babulal. The remaining averments of the claim petition were denied. It has further been averred that the said truck was not in fact insured with it on the day of the accident, insurance premium was paid and all formalities were observed after the accident had occurred and as such it is not liable to pay an amount. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,17,400/- with interest against the Insurance Company only.
(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the said award could not be passed against the appellant when it was not passed against the owner of the insured vehicle and an excessive amount has been awarded as compensation. He also contended that the insured Babulal was not he owner of the said truck at the time of the accident as prior to it he had transferred it to Manakmal, the Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier of 30 and in holding the income of the deceased to be Rs. 600/- per month. He lastly contended that the maximum liability of the Insurance Company-appellant was Rs. 50,000/- and as such the award in excess of this amount could not be passed against it. He relied upon Smt. Kata Devi and Anr. v. S. Dayal Singh and Ors. 1991 (1) A.C.C. 415 (H.P.) and Smt. Harjinder Kaur v. Smt. Shahni Devi 1991 (1) A.C.C. 345 (P and H).;