IMPORTANT POINT : Death in motor accident – Where there is no definite evidence about earning of victim guess work can be infused by courts in order to assess earning of deceased.

Judgment

The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, whereby the respondents-claimants have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,78,000/- and Rs. 8,36,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the whole amount in two claim petitions arising out of single accident on the ground that the Tribunal has not awarded the amount as per the evidence brought on record. It is also submitted that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tractor Trolley but the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Ford Figo car in which the deceased were travelling. In any case, it is submitted that the driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident had contributed equally in the accident. In other words, the compensation in case is to be awarded to the claimants the liability has to be in equal proportion against the drivers/owners of both the vehicles. The respondents-claimants have appeared through counsel.

2. The claimants in both the claim petitions have also filed separate appeals for enhancement of compensation.

3. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that there is nothing on the record to show that the claimants have suffered any pecuniary loss due to the death of Sarvesh Mahajan, Subash Chander and Rajni Devi in the accident. The business which was being run before the death of Sarvesh Mahajan and Subash Chander is still intact and there is no evidence on record to show that they were getting any benefit out of the business which could prompt the Tribunal to award compensation in favour of the claimants. In any case, the awarded amount is excessive one. There is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle-car and therefore the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to compensate the claimants for whole of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. It is emphatically submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle-car was also negligent in driving the vehicle as he had not kept the enough distance between his vehicle and the vehicle being driven in front of him.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents has argued that the driver of the Tractor insured with the appellant-Insurance Company was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which caused accident resulting into death of the three occupants of the car. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not on a higher side and infact the compensation should have been much more than the one awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company has argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding the driver of the Tractor Trolley liable for the accident which took place on 07.12.2012 though the driver of the vehicle Ford Figo Car was himself responsible for the accident as he did not keep the distance between the two vehicles as required in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. Had the driver of the car taken enough precaution the accident would not have taken place which resulted into death of three occupants of the car.

6. Mr. R.S.Jamwal, learned Advocate for the respondents-claimants has submitted that the driver of the car cannot be held liable for the accident as the driver of the Tractor had applied sudden breaks which resulted into accident.

7. The Tribunal after going through the evidence that is brought on record held the driver of the Tractor bearing No. JK08C-6821 liable for the accident having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently which resulted into collision with the car bearing No. JK02AX-6922 in which the victims were travelling. Rule 23 of the Road Regulations speaks of the obligation of the driver of the motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle to keep a sufficient distance from other vehicle to avoid colli