JUDGEMENT
R.S.Chauhan, J. -
(1.) Having lost their mother on an earlier occasion, five small
children lost their father in an accident.
Ramkishan Meena, a poor labourer while
coming on a truck filled with stones, met
his untimely death. The truck on which he
was travelling was rashly and negligently
driven by the driver. The truck went off
the road. Because of bumpy ground, Ramkishan
fell from the truck and his head was
crushed under the rear wheel of the truck.
He died instantly. Five children so orphaned
were represented by their maternal
grandfather, who filed a claim application
on their behalf. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Additional
District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur
City, Jaipur, was pleased to award a compensation
of Rs. 4,90,800 to the claimants
vide his award dated 21.3.2005. However,
the insurance company is aggrieved by the
fact that the orphans have been given such
a large bounty. Therefore, it has challenged
the said award before us.
(2.) Mr. Pratap Singh Arya, the learned
counsel for insurance company has raised
three contentions before us; firstly, the
deceased was travelling as an agent of the
person to whom the goods belonged, therefore,
he is not covered by the insurance
policy. Hence, the insurance company is
not liable for his death. Secondly, instead
of sitting in the cabin of the truck, he was
sitting among the stones which were stored
in the body of the truck. Therefore, he
contributed to his own death by the sheer
act of negligence of sitting in the open
body of the truck. Thirdly, the learned Tribunal
has imposed a penal interest of 12
per cent per annum which it could not
have done as there is no legal provision for
such imposition.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj,
the learned counsel for the respondents,
has contended that according to the
evidence on record the deceased was a
contractor, had gone to pick up the stones
and was travelling with the stones at the
fateful moment. Thus, he was travelling
with his own goods. Hence, he would be
covered under section 147 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred
to as 'the Act', for short). He has further
argued that since the khalasi and the driver
do not permit others to travel in the cabin,
therefore, the deceased had no choice but
to sit in the open part of the truck. Hence,
there was no negligence on his part in so
travelling in the truck. In all fairness he
has conceded that there is no provision for
imposition of penal interest.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.