Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1976 DIGILAW 162 (KAR)

PANNALAL, BANTIA v. S. SARASWATHAMMA

1976-10-05

HONNAIH, VENKATACHALAIAH

body1976
HONNIAH, AGCJ. ( 1 ) ON 9-10-1971 at about 2 A. M. the lorry bearing Registration No. MYR 4045, belonging to the appellant and driven by one Anwar Khan, met with an accident in between Hagaribommanahalli and Heggadahalli. One satyanarayana. who was working as a clerk in the shop of Hallur Halappa under the name and style 'hallur Halappa and. Co' at Davangere, was travelling in the lorry along with the goods belonging to Hallur Halappa and Co. As a result of the accident, Satyanarayana sustained injuries and died at the spot. His wife and children filed an application under S. 110a of the motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 45,000. The appellant, who was the owner of the truck, contended that the accident was due to reasons beyond the control of the driver. According to him, there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver. Lastly he contended that the quantum of compensation claimed was excessive. The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bellary, came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver. Having held thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,160 to the claimants, who are respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE claimants have filed cross-objections claiming more compensation. ( 3 ) IN this appeal Mr. Muralidhar Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that there is no satisfactory evidence in this case to show that Satyanarayana was accompanying the goods of Halter Halappa in the lorry in pursuance of a contract of employment. Therefore, according to him, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation, even assuing that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. There is no substance in this contention. Hallur Hallappa, under whom Satyanarayana was working, has been examined as PW. 3. He has slated that Satyanarayana was working under him and he had agreed to pay him Rs. 200 to 250 per month and he had also paid an advance of rs. 1,100 to 1,200. He has stated that he hired the lorry belonging to the appellant for transporting 90 bags of jowar to Gulbarga and in that lorry satyanarayana travelled. PW. 200 to 250 per month and he had also paid an advance of rs. 1,100 to 1,200. He has stated that he hired the lorry belonging to the appellant for transporting 90 bags of jowar to Gulbarga and in that lorry satyanarayana travelled. PW. 2 Basheer Khan, who was the cleaner of the lorry involved in the accident, has given evidence that Satyanarayana was travelling in the lorry along with the jowar bags. From the evidence of these two witnesses, the only inference that could be drawn is that satyanarayana was travelling in the lorry in pursuance of a contract of of employment between him and Hallur Halappa. The words 'contract of employment' found in S. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act would cover not only a contract of employment with the owner of the insured vehicle, but would also cover persons who were on the vehicle in pursuance of a contract of employment. (See the decision in Vanguard Insurance Co Ltd, madras v. Chinnammal, AIR, 1970 Mad. 236. ( 4 ) THE next question for consideration is about the quantum of compensation mr. Muralidhar Rao contended that the Award passed by the tribunal is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference. But on the other hand, Mr. Hanurnanthappa, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that taking into consideration the evidence of Hallur Halappa (PW. 3) that Satyanarayana, at the time of his death, was getting Rs. 200 to 250 per month and keeping in view that satyanarayana had a family consisting of his wife and five minor children, he, in all probability, must have been contributing to the family more than rs. 100 per month and on that basis the Tribunal was wrong in awarding only a sum of Rs. 11,160 as compensation. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute in this case that Satyanarayana, at the time of his death, was getting Rs. 200 to 250 per month. The Tribunal has held that a sum of Rs. 200 was the salary that Satyanarayana was getting from hallur Halappa. If the income of Satyanarayana was Rs. 200 per month, it is difficult to support the reasoning of the Tribunal that his contribution to the family was only Rs. 60 per month. Satyanarayana had to maintain his wife and five minor children. Therefore, he must have been contributing not less than Rs. If the income of Satyanarayana was Rs. 200 per month, it is difficult to support the reasoning of the Tribunal that his contribution to the family was only Rs. 60 per month. Satyanarayana had to maintain his wife and five minor children. Therefore, he must have been contributing not less than Rs. 100 per month for the maintenance of his family. The evidence in this case shows that Satyanarayana was at the tune of his death, aged 35 years. In the normal course, he would contribute to the family at the rate of Rs. 100 per month at least till he attained the age of 60 years. If that is so, the family would have got the benefit of Rs. 30,000 for that period. As the claimants would be getting this amount in a lumpsum, it has got to be taxed down by 20 per cent. If that is done, the claimants will be entitled to get Rs. 24,000. The wife and children have lost the benefit of the company of Satyanarayana. For that we award a compensation of Rs. 5000. In all the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 29,000 as compensation. Accordingly we pass an Award, awarding a sum of Rs. 29,000 to the claimants. This amount is liable to be paid by the appellant and the insurer (Respt 7) jointly and severally. This amount shall carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the amount is paid. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. The cross-objections are allowed without costs and the Award passed by the Tribunal is modified as indicated above. ( 7 ) OUT of the compensation amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the minor children in any one of the nationalised Banks for a period of 10 years and the interest accruing on that amount will be taken by the mother for the maintenance of herself and the minor children and after the expiry of 10 years, the amount will be distributed amongst the children and the mother equally. The balance of rs. 9000 shall be received by the mother for the benefit of herself and the minor children. --- *** --- .