SHAMBHOO SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of M. A. No. 197 of 1995 filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. and M. A. No. 182 of 1995 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount against the award dated 20. 12. 1994 passed by Addl. M. A. C. T. , dewas, in Claim Case No. 85 of 1993.

( 2 ) CLAIMANTS' case is that on 19. 8. 1990, their son, the deceased Suresh Kumar was coming in taxi car No. MOD 6151, belonging to non-applicant No. 1 driven by non-applicant No. 2 from Bhopal and was going to Indore. Near Jetpura village truck no. CPJ 6818 belonging to non-applicant no. 4, driven by non-applicant No. 5 and insured with the non-applicant No. 6 was parked without parking lights on or any signal. At about 11 p. m. the car No. MOD 6151 came from Bhopal side and dashed against the back portion of the truck no. CPJ 6818, as a result of which Suresh kumar sustained injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 20 years. He was proprietor of Barkha Bottle bhandar and was earning Rs. 10,000 per month. The claimants filed claim case seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000. The non-applicant No. 1, the owner and non-applicant No. 2, the driver of the car and non-applicant No. 5, the driver of the truck absented and were proceeded, expane. Non-applicant No. 3 averred that the insurance policy of the car had expired on 17. 7. 1990, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The appellant non-applicant No. 6 insurance company contested the case. It averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the taxi car. The driver of the truck was not negligent in any way as the truck was parked on the left side of the road with parking lights on. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the drivers of both vehicles and fixed the responsibility of the car driver at 2/3rd and that of truck driver at 1/3rd and awarded compensation of Rs. 64,000. The claimants filed m. A. No. 182 of 1995 for enhancement of compensation and the insurance company filed M. A. No. 197 of 1995 for setting aside the award.

( 3 ) MR. Punegar, learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that the amount of compensation of Rs. 64,000 is hopelessly low. The deceased was earning Rs. 10,000 per month, therefore, the amount of compensation should be enhanced. On the other hand in M. A. No. 197 of 1995 Mr. Dandwate, learned counsel for the insurance company, submitted that the learned tribunal committed error in holding that the truck driver was negligent and fixing his liability at 1/3rd. In the alternative, he submitted that the compensation amount should be apportioned and it should be directed to pay according to its liability.

( 4 ) WE considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. Chand Ratan biyani, AW 3, the father of the deceased suresh Kumar, stated that his son Suresh was running Barkha Bottle Bhandar and was earning Rs. 10,000-12,000 per month. He filed the documents Exhs. P-ll to p-13 of Sales Tax Department. P. L. Vyas, aw 1, Sales Tax Inspector, proved Exh. P-l stating that deceased Suresh Kumar s/o Chand Ratan Biyani, was the proprietor of this firm. He proved certificate exh. P-2. This witness and Chand Ratan biyani admitted that this firm is still going on. After the death of Suresh Kumar it has been transferred to Mahesh, the elder son of Chand Ratan Biyani. It is, thus, clear that the firm is running in the same way as it was running by the deceased before his death, therefore, due to death of Suresh kumar no monetary loss was caused to the parents. It has not been shown that the income of this firm, after the death of suresh Kumar has decreased. Under such circumstances, the death of Suresh Kumar has caused no monetary loss. But the parents have been deprived of the services rendered by Suresh Kumar to the family. We shall, therefore, assess the value of the services rendered by the decease

Click Here to Read the rest of this document