Negligence of the truck driver established through thorough evidence review, affirming liability and fair compensation award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Order :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Appellant herein, inter-alia, seeks setting aside of the award rendered vide judgment/order dated 30.09.2022 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Udaipur in case No.608/2019 vide which a compensation of Rs.10,48,952/- has been determined in favor of the respondents.

2. The brief facts are that on 02.08.2017 at about 11.00 A.M., deceased Lalit Kumar employed as a Khalasi, was sitting in truck number RJ-27-GA-9040, when it’s driver respondent No. 3 Kailash, driving the said truck negligently and carelessly, went on the wrong side of the Sukoli village –Mumbai Goa Highway. It hit a dumper-truck number MH-06-BD-3098 coming from the front and over-turned. Lalit Kumar died due to injuries sustained in the accident caused by the collision of the truck with the dumper-truck.

2.1 The respondent Nos.1 & 2 (claimants) are the parents of Lalit Kumar deceased. In their claim petition, it is stated that the deceased (21 years old at the time of the accident/death) worked as a helper on truck number RJ-27-GA-9040 of Respondent no. 4 (registered owner) earning a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000 and a daily allowance of Rs. 100, totaling Rs. 12,000/-. Due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered loss of income from the deceased, loss of future income, mental anguish, loss of love, affection, respect, and support from their son and future mental anguish and loss of partnership. The claimants thus sought compensation under various heads aggregating Rs.39,38,000 from the appellant – Insurance Company and respondents No.3 (Driver) and 4 (Owner).

2.2 Respondent No.3 pleaded that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the dumper truck and not due to his fault.

2.3 Respondent No. 4 (Ashok Kumar) pleaded that before the date of accident, he had sold/handed over possession of the truck to respondent No. 5 (Meetha Lal) and, therefore, in any case, he was not liable to pay any compensation.

2.4 The appellant - Insurance company filed a reply to the claim petition denying the facts mentioned therein stating that no accident occurred with the vehicle of respondent No.4. In any case, it did not occur due to the fault or negligence of the respondent driver, but due to the fault and negligence of the dumper driver. The compensation amount demanded is inflated. At the time of the incident, the respondent No.3 - driver did not have a valid and effective license to drive the vehicle in question and at the time of the incident, the vehicle in question was being operated without a permit and fitness, due to which the appellant - insurance company is not liable to pay compensation due to violation of the terms of the insurance policy.

2.5 Respondent No.5 remained ex-parte in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal.

3. Based on respective evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant-respondents are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,48,952/- from the appellant, respondents No. 4 and 5 jointly and severally in favor of the claimant-respondents No. 1-2 with interest @ 6% per annum from 05.08.2019, the date of filing the claim petition.

4. The insurance company is in appeal seeking setting aside of the award against it and alternatively for reduction of the compensation amount.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the claimants did not prove the employment of the deceased with the registered owner of the offending truck; it’s driver (respondent No. 3 did not hold a valid licence for driving the said vehicle at the relevant time; the monthly minimum wages of unskilled worker were Rs. 5,382/- but the learned Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as