S. N. Andley, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal in forma pauperis has been filed by the appellant against the dismissal of her suit (also filed in forma pauperis) by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated July 27,1961. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,08,009. 00 as and by way of compensation for the death of the appellant s husband, Abhey Charan Malik, on November 24, 1956 as a result allegedly of his being run over by Truck No. DLD-5332 at about 5. 00 P. M. on Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The truck admittedly belonged to M/s. Mahalaxmi Stone Mills (respondent No. 1) and was being driven at the time of accident by Kartar Singh (Respondent No. 1 ). It was insured with the Premier Insurance Co. , Ltd. , New Delhi (Respondent No. 3 ).

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant was that Abhey Charan Malik, hereinafter referred to as "the deceased", was going on a cycle at Asaf Ali Road on the aforesaid date when the said truck came suddenly from behind from the side of Ram Lila Ground, Ajmere Gate, knocking down and running over the deceased as a result of which his ribs were broken and he sustained fatal injuries resulting in his death at Irwin Hospital at about 5. 40 P. M. on the said date.

( 3 ) IT was alleged, inter-alia, that the truck was not in a road-worthy condition, that it was loaded with labourers and sand stones and that it was being driven at a fast speed, that no horn was sounded, nor the brake applied either when the ring of the wheel of the truck got off or when the wheel of the truck got off, that no warning was given by the driver to enable the deceased to get out of the way of the truck and that the hand-brake was found broken and the foot brake was found inoperative when the truck was examined by the Motor Vehicles Inspector after the accident. The age of the deceased was give as 30 at the time of his death and it was stated that he was earning not less than Rs. 300. 00 per month from his vocation of a sanitary contractor. The appellant sued for the benefit of herself, her three minor daughters and her parents-in-law who were alleged to be dependent upon the deceased. It was averred that a healthy person like the deceased would have been expected to live upto the age of 60 years and even taking his earning capacity at an average of Rs. 300. 00per month, the compensation would amount to Rs. 1,08,000. 00 which was claimed in the suit.

( 4 ) IT is not necessary to give the pleadings of the respondents at any great detail except to say that it was denied that the deceased died because of any rash or negligent act of the respondent No. 2 and that in any event, respondent No. 3 was not under any liability to pay more than Rs. 20,000. 00 by reason of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues after declaring the appellant to be a pauper and registering the suit - 1. Whether the defendant s firm No. 1 was dissolved on 9-10-57 ? 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the suit against defendant No. 1 is competent ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is widow of Abhey Charan deceased ? 4. Whether the persons referred to in para No. 6 of the plaint were dependants of the deceased ? 5. Whether the plaintiff can claim damages for the persons mentioned in issue No. 4 ? 6. Whether the death of Abhey Charan was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Vehicle by the defendant No. 2 as alleged in para No. 4 of the plaint ? 7. To what damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled and from whom ? 8. To what extent the defendant No. 3 is liable ? 9. Relief. The decision on issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 was in favour of the appellant. With regard to Issue No. 4, the trial Court found that the parents of the deceased were not his depandants. Issue No. 6 was decided against the appellant. On issues Nos. 7 and 8, it was held that if the appellant was held entitled to damages, the quantum of such damages would be Rs. 22,500. 00. However, in view of the finding on issue

Click Here to Read the rest of this document