I.S. Israni, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is against the award dated 29.1.1986, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in case No. 60 of 1982, by which the Appellants were awarded amount of Rs. 1,06,100/ - as compensation. However, Rs. 53,050/ - were deducted on account of contributory negligence of the deceased Ramswaroop.
(2.) IN brief the facts of the case are that on 22.1.1982, at about 11.00 p.m. deceased Ramswaroop was coming on cycle from National Ball Bearing Company, and was going towards Sodala/Civil Lines, on his right side, a truck bearing No. DEG 444 was coming from the side of Civil Lines/Sodala Road and dragged the deceased at the crossing of Ajmer Road Bridge. Respondent No. 2, Dhanni Ram, driver of the truck, in his written statement pleaded that the cyclist was crossing the main road but did not care to see the truck and came all of a sudden under the truck. The insurance company pleaded that its liability was restricted to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - only. The deceased, who was aged 26 years, lost his life on account of this accident. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck, Respondent No. 2, but also held the deceased to be liable for contributory negligence. On basis of evidence, it was held by the Tribunal that the deceased, who was an employee in National Ball Bearing Company, was drawing a salary of Rs. 750/ - p.m., had a wife, two children and mother. An amount of Rs. 350/ -was deducted on account of personal expenses and dependency was fixed at Rs. 400/ -. While applying multiplier of 20 years, amount of Rs. 96,000/ - was awarded under this head. However, since the Tribunal held that the deceased was also responsible for the accident, therefore, 50% amount was deducted under this head and net amount of Rs. 48,000/ -was awarded as compensation to the claimants under this head. Apart from this the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,500/ - to each of the claimants, on account of mental agony and loss of consortium. Thus the total amount came to Rs. 1,06,100/ -. The contention of Mr. H.M. Bhargava, learned Counsel for the Appellant, is that the Tribunal has held the deceased to be responsible for contributory negligence, even though there is no evidence whatsoever on the record. It is, therefore, contended that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding the deceased to be responsible for contributory negligence, which has been assessed at 50% of the amount awarded under the head of pecuniary compensation. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that the amount of Rs. 350/ - deducted for the personal expenses is also on high side. A person who earns Rs. 750/ - p.m. and has to maintain his wife, two children and his mother is not expected to spend this much amount from the meagre salary that he was drawing. His contention is that the amount of Rs. 350/ - is little less than 50% of the income which he cannot be expected to be spending upon himself. His contention is that maximum amount that can be deducted on personal expenses, keeping in view the size of the family, should not be more than l/3rd of the salary drawn by the deceased. The third contention of learned Counsel is that the deceased was only 26 years old and the multiplier of 20 applied by the Tribunal is on extremely low side. Usually expected span of life in India is now taken at seventy years and it is, therefore, pleaded that the span of life in this case should also be placed at seventy years and accordingly the multiplier should be increased to 44 years, instead of 20, applied by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded for loss of consortium a very meagre amount of Rs. 2,500/ - to a young widow, aged 22 years, which deserves to be increased to Rs. 20,000/ - as her life changed suddenly on account of this sad accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the liability of insurance company is restricted to Rs. 50,000/ - in view of the policy which shows that additional amount of premium was paid for wider coverage and, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay whatever compensation is awarded to the claimants.
(3.) MR . S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurance company, frankly admitted that due to payment of additional premium, the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. It was contended by Mr. M.R. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 owner, that the Tribunal has rightly held the deceased to be responsible for contributory negligence. The accident took place at about 11.00 p.m. and the truck was coming with full lights on, which was enough indication to the deceased that a truck was coming towards crossing and he should have been careful also. He further referred to regulations 6 and 7 of the Act to stress the point that the deceased cyclist was also responsible to observe the rules as laid down in the regulations. It is further contended that the award calls for no interference and the amount awarded to the Appellant is justified on all counts.;