JUDGMENT 1. - These two cross-appeals have been filed one by Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Regional Mechanical Engineer in the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation and second by the dependents of the deceased Kishan Behari Lal Sharma, against the judgment of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, functioning as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated the 1st June, 1974, by which the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- has been allowed to the claimants, namely, Jaswanti Devi, Narendra Behari Lal Sharma, Kamal Behari Lal Sharma, Raj Sharma and Kumari Kamini Sharma for the death of Kishan Behari Lal Sharma. 2. These appeals relate to a fatal accident which took place at the tri-junction of the Station Road, Bani Park Road and M.I. Road at Jaipur on 5th May, 1965. It is alleged that while the truck No. RJL 1570, driven by Mohammed (since deceased) was coming from Chandpole side, it turned at this tri-junction to the right side to proceed towards Bani Park and scooter RSL 864 driven by Mahavir Prasad Sharma came from the same direction i.e. from Chandpole side and was proceeding towards the station. On the rear seat of this scooter, the deceased Kishan Behari Lal, aged 371/2 years at that time, was sitting. The right hand front side of the truck struck the scooter as a result of which Kishan Behari Lal fell down on the road side and received fatal injury on the head, i.e. fracture of occipital bone extending to forearm magnum and extra deural haemotoma on occipital region causing intra-cranial haemorrhage and ultimately died on the way to the hospital. The driver of the scooter also fell down but he received only superficial injuries. 3. Kishan Behari Lai Sharma was a Sub-Inspector of Central Stores of the said Corporation and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 165/- and was head of the family and the only earning member in the family, consisting of himself, his wife, one daughter and three sons. His dependents have filed a claim petition for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 4. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence in the case, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim against the truck owner, Mohanlal Halwai and its insurance company but allowed the claim against the scooter owner, Mahavir Prasad Sharma, who was, himself, driving the scooter, as mentioned above. 5. 1,00,000/-. 4. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence in the case, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim against the truck owner, Mohanlal Halwai and its insurance company but allowed the claim against the scooter owner, Mahavir Prasad Sharma, who was, himself, driving the scooter, as mentioned above. 5. After mentioning and discussing the evidence of Jaswanti Devi (PW 1), Dr. R.K. Sharma (PW 7), Ranchhod Das (PW 6), Mahavir Prasad (DW 1), Mohanlal (DW 3) and Devilal (DW 2), the Tribunal observed that it has not been proved from the evidence of the claimants that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the truck driver who himself died after this accident. 6. The finding of the Tribunal is that the truck had taken turn to the right when the collision took place at about 10-12 paces to the west of the traffic point. Without giving any reasons, it abruptly came to the conclusion that it was wrong to say that the truck was being driven at a fast speed. 7. The only reason given is based on the imaginary conjectures and surmises that, if the truck would have struck the scooter as well as its driver would have been run over, which has not been done. The additional reason given is that the truck stopped after the accident. According to the Tribunal, the scooter dashed against the truck. 8. Reliance was; placed on the decision in Vishwa Mitra Chaddha v. Amrit Kaur 1972 ACJ 213 (All) , in which the driver of the taxi was speeding and had engaged himself in a racing competition with two other taxies and this he did while it was drizzling and the road was wet. While trying to overtake another taxi, the car skidded at the road side and it dashed against a tree with force. 9. It is curious and shocking, how this analogy was taken for ousting the claim of the claimants. In my opinion, the case of the competition between the taxies and overtaking each other in that case, is wholly different from the present one and the Tribunal should have appreciated difference between the two. 10. 9. It is curious and shocking, how this analogy was taken for ousting the claim of the claimants. In my opinion, the case of the competition between the taxies and overtaking each other in that case, is wholly different from the present one and the Tribunal should have appreciated difference between the two. 10. Yet, another reason given by the Tribunal is that the driver of the vehicle should have given precedence 1 o the traffic entering the road at intersection from his right and should slow down while approaching the intersection. Here again, this principle laid down in Jaswant Kaur v. Ratti Ram 1971 ACJ 31 (P & H) , which has been relied upon by the Tribunal, is not applicable in the present set of circumstances because, the scooter driver as per the evidence on record, was going without any change of direction or taking a round and it was the truck which took the turn. If this principle is applied, it would also go against the truck driver. 11. It is surprising that the evidence of the parties had not been discussed at all and only on these conjectures and surmises, mentioned above, the truck driver and the owner have been exonerated The Tribunal, on the one hand, observed that the best evidence is of the scooter driver and in the next breath, it contradicts its conclusion by observing that he happens to be an interested witness. 12. In my opinion, the judgment of the Tribunal is based on the perverse approach to the case. The evidence of Mahavir Prasad (DW 1) coupled with the evidence of other eyewitnesses, namely, Ranchhod Das (PW 6) and Abdul Sattar (PW 4) clearly go to show that the driver of the truck was responsible for this accident as he took a turn and at that time also, he did not take the precautions which were necessary, with the result that on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck it struck and dragged the scooter which fell down. Even, no horn or signal was given by the truck driver while taking the turn. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration of the truck owner, Mohanlal Halwai is perverse and the owner is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. 13. Even, no horn or signal was given by the truck driver while taking the turn. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration of the truck owner, Mohanlal Halwai is perverse and the owner is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. 13. The next question, which now requires consideration is, whether M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd., Madras with which, as alleged, the truck was insured, is liable or not? 14. In this connection, Mr. H.M. Bhargava, the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Vanguard Insurance Company, submitted that the insurance policy was not produced and no evidence was led that the truck was insured with this insurance company. It appears that the insurance company was a party but, in the reply, which it submitted, it has been alleged that the claimants should have given particulars of the policy by seeking amendment. On 11th October, 1973, Jaswanti Devi moved an application mentioning that this truck in question was insured with M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. under insurance certificate No. 398404 which was valid from 25th April, 1965 to 24th April, 1966 in the name of Mohanlal Halwai. It was prayed that under Order 12, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, the insurance company should be asked to admit the fact of insurance. 15. It appears that after this application, a copy of it was given to the insurance company along with notice to admit the facts, dated the 11th October, 1973. The insurance company has played a game of delaying tactics by taking adjournments and avoiding reply, not one but half a dozen adjournments which were granted; significantly enough, the insurance company did not reply, whatsoever. Obviously, the legal inference which can be drawn in these circumstances, is that after the receipt of the notice to admit these facts and the application under Order 12, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, in which the detailed facts and particulars of the insurance including the number of insurance certificate, dates, etc. were given; the insurance company could not muster up courage to purge by false denial. It has no courage to admit these facts also which is unfortunate. 16. were given; the insurance company could not muster up courage to purge by false denial. It has no courage to admit these facts also which is unfortunate. 16. In my considered opinion, the insurance companies should not act, like private litigants who, often tends to be dishonest to save money for their self interest on account of no values of life but, should respond with honesty and dignity by accepting the liability unless there is some real substantial defence. It should not be forgotten that the insurance is not done for entering into litigations and on the death or injuries sustained, the insurance should not be converted by the insurance companies' stooping down by converting into litigation insurance. If the insurance company persists in any such event to inspire confidence of the people for the liability and failed to rise upto expectations of the citizens who pay high premium for such God cursed accidents and contingencies then, the very object for which the insurance is done would be frustrated and defeated and the people would loose faith in the institution of the insurance. It is all the more regrettable when such insurance companies contest even after the nationalisation when they have come in the category of the nationalised insurance companies and from private sector they come in the public sector. 17. I have been observing in the accident claim cases and the appeals which are coming before this Court, that more often than not, the appeals are filed by the insurance companies which borders on being frivolous and sometimes vexatious and it only adds insult to injury wasting the public exchequer's money and wasting valuable time of the Courts and the Tribunals which can otherwise be used in other litigations. It is expected from all the insurance companies that they before raising a contest should ensure that unless a valid defence which should be valid both in law and facts can be established, they should not add to arrears of litigation in the courts and should not shake the public faith in insurance institution. 18. In the instant case, when the notice was given to admit the facts of the insurance and the number of certificate was also given along with the dates, the insurance company should have either admitted or denied the fact rather than to prolong the litigation by taking adjournment, one after the other. 18. In the instant case, when the notice was given to admit the facts of the insurance and the number of certificate was also given along with the dates, the insurance company should have either admitted or denied the fact rather than to prolong the litigation by taking adjournment, one after the other. Such adjournments usually only add to the arrears of the court which are piling up in the courts and the Tribunals shaking people's confidence in the Temples of Justice' and the court's capacity to impart 'justice' to the insured person or dependents of the dead in such accidents, when the claimants are waiting for adjudication both on legal and humanitarian grounds. It should not be forgotten that a person dies leaving children of minor age, in accident cases and the Tribunal is required to adjourn the claim petition only for defence by adopting delaying tactics, then the sons, daughters who require financial aid on account of God cursed accidents, are deprived of the same and the litigation ends when they become major in the absence of proper nourishment or proper education which otherwise should have been provided by immediate payment of compensation. There are insurance companies in the world which compete each other in making payment of compensation promptly and then advertise to the people the utility of the insurance but, I am constrained to observe that, far from that, the present one is a case where the insurance company even avoided the basic admission of insurance, the fact, which was so patent and not latent even when the number of the insurance certificate was given, in the application moved under Order 12, Rule 4 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. 19. In such circumstances, I am convinced that the insurance company had no valid defence and the insurance company would be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, (Sic. Rs. 20,000/-), as per the law as it was on the date of the accident. 20. The claimants have also filed appeal in order to increase the compensation amount. I find, after scrutiny of the evidence and the finding of the Tribunal, that the income which the dependents were getting, had been calculated at Rs. 25,000/-, (Sic. Rs. 20,000/-), as per the law as it was on the date of the accident. 20. The claimants have also filed appeal in order to increase the compensation amount. I find, after scrutiny of the evidence and the finding of the Tribunal, that the income which the dependents were getting, had been calculated at Rs. 120/- per month for a period of 17 72 years during which the deceased would have served as servant of the Corporation and according to the Tribunal, it would have amounted to Rs. 25,000/- which cannot be said to be inadequate though looking to the present day human life, it may hardly be proper compensation. 21. However, I am inclined to allow interest to the claimants at the rate of 6% from the date of application till the date of realisation. 22. I am allowing this interest because it is well known that even the banks allow 9 to 12 per cent interest ordinarily and this accident took place on 5th May, 1966 and it is one of the most unfortunate cases where even after a lapse of about two decades, the claimants have not received a single pie and have not seen the colour of rupee. 23. The result of the above discussion is, that the appeal of Mahavir Prasad is accepted and by modification it is held that the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal vide impugned award dated the 1st June, 1974 would be paid by Mohanlal Halwai, the truck owner and M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd., Madras. The liability of the insurance company would be upto Rs. 20,000/- only. Mahavir Prasad Sharma is exonerated from any liability, whatsoever. 24. The appeal of Jaswanti Devi and others, the claimants, is also allowed to this limited extent that they would get interest on the above amount of Rs. 25,000/- at the rate of 6% from the date of the application, i.e. 5th July, 1965 till the date of realisation but, the liability of the insurance company would be limited for this interest upto the compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- only. Consequently the impugned award is modified to the extent above. 25. The Respondent, Mohanlal Halwai and M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. would also pay costs of Rs. 500/- to both the Appellants in these two appeals. 26. 20,000/- only. Consequently the impugned award is modified to the extent above. 25. The Respondent, Mohanlal Halwai and M/s. Vanguard Insurance Company Ltd. would also pay costs of Rs. 500/- to both the Appellants in these two appeals. 26. A copy (photostat) of this judgment is ordered to be sent to the Chairman, New India Assurance Company Limited, Head Office, 87, Mahatama Gandhi Road, Bombay Fort, Bombay and the Chairman, General Insurance Corporation, Bombay, so that proper instructions are issued to all the Subordinate Officers of the insurance companies and it is circulated among them for guidance.Appeals allowed. *******