Shanti Devi v. Ram Karan — 1985 DIGILAW 148 (RAJ)

G.M. LODHA, J.—These are three appeals by the legal representatives of three persons namely, Prem Prakash alias Prem Mohan, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar, who died in an accident while they were on a motor cycle, which is alleged to have collided with a truck. It is alleged that the accident had happened on October 10, 1977 at 10.00 AM near Mahuwa bus stand. The motorcycle was bearing No. DHT 2547 and was being driven by Arvind Kumar. The other three persons, who were sitting on this vehicle were Prem Prakash, Ashok Kumar and Anand Kumar. They were coming from Rajgarh to Alwar. The number of the Truck was RJA 2936 and was being driven by Ram Karan and owned by Ismail and Madanlal respondents. The truck was insured with M/s United India Fire and General Insurance Company. The motor cycle was insured with National Insurance Company. In the unfortunate accident only Anand Kumar serviced to narrate the tragic story of the accident. 2. A report was lodged in the Police and the police seized the vehicles, prepared the necessary documents and by the legal representatives of the three deceased i. e. Prem Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar. 3. Since all the claims related to one accident, the three claims were consolidated and one set of witnesses was examined by the Tribunal. A consolidated judgment was given on January 31, 1983 dismissing the claim petitions on the ground that no such accident with the truck happened and the claimants have failed to prove that there was any collision between the truck and the motor cycle. 4. I would first deal with the question whether a collision between the truck and the motor cycle has been proved in this case or not, because the principal question regarding compensation centers round this important facet of the case. The Tribunal has entered into detailed appreciation of the evidence and rejected the evidence of the claimants on the ground that there are serious inconsistencies between the evidence and it is not worthy of reliance. 5. The Tribunal has held that it is proved that Prem Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar died after falling from motor cycle on October 10, 1977 and Anand Kumar was with them at that time on the motor cycle when they were going from Rajgarh to Alwar. 5. The Tribunal has held that it is proved that Prem Prakash, Arvind Kumar and Ashok Kumar died after falling from motor cycle on October 10, 1977 and Anand Kumar was with them at that time on the motor cycle when they were going from Rajgarh to Alwar. It has been held that all the three died on the spot. The non-applicants have also not challenged this aspect of the case regarding deceased. The postmortem reports also confirm it. 6. The claimants have examined Shambhu Dayal AW 7 and Anandkumar AW 10 to prove that there was a collision between the truck and the motor cycle. Shambhu Dayal was conductor of another Bus No. RJA 471 and was going from Alwar to Rani. He saw a motor cycle coming and the truck following it. The truck tried to take side, but at that crucial time the motor cycle and the truck dashed against each other as the motor cycle came in contact with the bumper of the bumper of the truck. The truck was being driven at a fast speed and it continued its journey after the accident. He saw that three out of the four died on the spot, but the fourth was surviving. He took Anand Kumar in his bus and went to Rajgarh. The witness had given the number of the truck as RJA 2936. 7. The Tribunal has entered into a detailed discussion of his statement and I am inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Jain that the Tribunal forgot that the standard of proof in civil cases and more so in the accident claims tribunal is different from that of a criminal case. Mr. Jain is justified in his criticism that the Tribunal considered almost every sentence of the statement at various steps in order to discard it and then as if the claimants were required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, held that the claimants have failed to prove their case. To illustrate, when the witness said that the fourth man was surviving and he was breathing, the Tribunal jumped to the conclusion that from this the witness meant that the fourth man was also seriously injured, but since he was not seriously injured, therefore, the witness was not present at the time of occurrence. To illustrate, when the witness said that the fourth man was surviving and he was breathing, the Tribunal jumped to the conclusion that from this the witness meant that the fourth man was also seriously injured, but since he was not seriously injured, therefore, the witness was not present at the time of occurrence. The Tribunal did not consider the important feature of the case that the eye witness Anand Kumar was taken in the bus by this witness to Rajgarh and this part of the case is corroborated. The Tribunal on the contrary attached undue importance to minor discrepancies in statements of minor exaggerations, even if they are held to be so witness. Anandkumar stated that after the accident he tried to stop the truck. He for that purpose gave a call to the truck driver. The Tribunal has made much capital out of this statement by comparing the statement of Shambhu Dayal, who has stated that Anand Kumar was lying. In my opinion, both can be correct and consistent. On the spur of the accident for a few moments when the blood is hot, a person falling from the motor cycle can re-act and call the truck driver to stop, though he may not be able to stand soon after the accident and lay down. It is very surprising that the Tribunal has tried to give undue importance to every feature of the case howsoever minor it may be. 8. Another important point on which the Tribunal has discarded the evidence is that if the motor cycle touched the bumper of the truck, then there should be some marks, but Exs. 16 & 17 fail to show that there were any such marks. Shambhu Dayal, according to the Tribunal admitted that the motor cycle was on the road side and motor cycle tried to give side and then there was collision. The inconsistency of the Tribunals finding lies on the fact that it earlier held that there was no collision and then it held that the truckwala took all precautions and crossed the vehicle i. e. motor cycle from the correct side. 9. The Tribunal has also created confusion by comparing the sides. It then said that even if it is held that there was a collision from the road side, then there would be no mistake of the truck driver. 9. The Tribunal has also created confusion by comparing the sides. It then said that even if it is held that there was a collision from the road side, then there would be no mistake of the truck driver. It was forgotten by the Tribunal that Shambhu Dayal has stated that the vehicle was being driven at a very fast excessive speed and negligence lies in that when near a bus stand such an excessive speed is used by a truck. 10. The Tribunal then discarded this evidence on the ground that witness Shambuhu Dayal could not have seen the accident because he has admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of accident he was giving ticket in the bus. Surprisingly enough the Tribunal forgot that whenever there is bound to be diverted whatever other work a person must be doing. Merely because he was giving tickers it does not mean that he was doing it with blind eyes or eyes closed from all other sides. 11. In my opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in discarding an independent witness, who was in a bus as a conductor at that time. 12. Mow coming to the statement of AW 10 Anand Kumar, it is obvious that be was on the side and his presence at the time of the accident cannot be doubted. According to this witness when the truck came from behind with rash-ness and excessive speed the motor cycle was taken on the right side of the road, because on the left side there was a pit (Khadda). The motor cycle was taken from the pucca road towards Kutcha side but the truck came and dashed. This witness has testified that the speed of the truck was excessive. He has stated that at that time bus came and he then went in that bus to Rajgarh. The Tribunal rejected his evidence and one of the grounds being that this witness was shocked by the accident and because all three of his associates died. This is not the proper way of appreciation of evidence, in accident cases. If the sole surviving person in an accident is not believed on the ground that he was shocked, that would only add insult to his injury. Merely because one is shocked, he would not fall to observe the important facets of the accident. 13. This is not the proper way of appreciation of evidence, in accident cases. If the sole surviving person in an accident is not believed on the ground that he was shocked, that would only add insult to his injury. Merely because one is shocked, he would not fall to observe the important facets of the accident. 13. The Tribunal has also rejected his evidence on the ground that no part of his body came into clash with the truck. It must be mentioned that accidents happen in various manner and it is not possible to forecast a peculiar impact of an accident. The fact that Anand Kumar did not get any scratch undoubtedly surprising, but that surprise would happen even if the motor cycle met an accident without the impact of the truck, because three of his associates sitting on the motor cycle died and he survived scratch free. These are miracles, which happen in accidents and it all depends upon on what posture and at what place one falls. The Tribunal should not have rejected his testimony on this ground, because the fact that he did not get a scratch cannot be a proof of the fact that there was no collision as held by the Tribunal. Three persons undoubtedly died in an accident and accident was there is no reason why this witness should involve the truck and the owner of the truck and the driver. 14. The Tribunal then stated that from the evidence of AW 9 Kripa Shankar it is clear that there was no mark of accident and, therefore, there was no collision. Here again it must be mentioned that there is no doubt that the motor cycle met with an accident whether with a truck or otherwise and, therefore, some parts of motor cycle whether in the accident with the truck or in the accident with some other object are bound to be hit and damaged. According to the Tribunal the front side of the motor cycle was damaged. The headlight was broken. An inference has been drawn by the Tribunal that since headlight was broken and front side was damaged, there was no accident from behind. According to the Tribunal the front side of the motor cycle was damaged. The headlight was broken. An inference has been drawn by the Tribunal that since headlight was broken and front side was damaged, there was no accident from behind. Here again it must be mentioned that even if a motor cycle and a truck collides and the motor cycle comes into contact with the bumper of the truck, damage on the front side of the motor cycle can be caused. 15. The Tribunal then stated that the burden of proof that motor cycle collided with the truck was on the claimants and they have failed to prove that burden. 16. Another reason given by the Tribunal is that according to Anand Kumar the truck wheels overrun Arvind Kumar and Prem Prakash, but there are no marks of it in the postmortem. According to the statement of AW 14 Dr. Madhuri mentioned by the Tribunal it has been proved that some wheel of the vehicle certainly over-run deceased Ashok Kumar, but the Tribunal on its own said that this was not possible, because if that would have happened, the whole of the skull would have broken. This also is surprising, because unless the question was put to medical expert or some other medical expert was examined the Tribunal should not have taken on itself the job of acting as a medical expert. The Tribunal again went into the real of conjectures when it said that if the trucks wheels passed from the head of Ashok Kumar they should have also passed on the bodies of Prem Prakash and Arvind Kumar. As I have said above, in accident cases it is very difficult to enter into guess work how the accident happens and the impact cannot be a matter of calculation like mathematical calculations. 17. The Tribunal then again took on the statement of Shambhu Dayal and stated that Manoharlal was driving the vehicle in which he was Conductor and Manoharlal was produced as a witness by the non-applicants, who has stated that it was correct that Anand Kumar was taken in this very vehicle to Rajgarh, but he has not seen the accident himself. The Tribunal then again took on the statement of Shambhu Dayal and stated that Manoharlal was driving the vehicle in which he was Conductor and Manoharlal was produced as a witness by the non-applicants, who has stated that it was correct that Anand Kumar was taken in this very vehicle to Rajgarh, but he has not seen the accident himself. It is well known that it all depends up- on the peculiar context in which observation is made and no such principle can be laid down as a matter of law that a bus is being driven by a driver while sitting at the foremost end of the vehicle and the observations of the driver would be more clear than that of Conductor. Naturally the driver is more particular about the road ahead and the hazardous so that he can drive his vehicle and a good driver will not try to see on sides and observe other things for avoiding destruction and ensuring concentration on the front side. A conductor on the contrary has no such responsibility to drive a vehicle and as such he can observe on either-side with ease. It may or may not happen, but to discard the testimony of this witness on the ground that driver has not observed the accident is not proper manner of appreciation of evidence. Contrary to it the driver corroborates that the survived person of the accident was taken in this very vehicle and thus corroborates the Conductor and the other witness. 18. The Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of two boys, who are alleged to have been sitting on the side shops. For this it has placed reliance on the statement of AW 10 Anand Kumar, who has admitted that Deena was there. According to Deena after the truck had passed the motor cycle came and it fell in a ditch on account; of loosing of the balance. The only reason given by the Tribunal is that there is no reason to discard this witness. It is a surprising why the Conductors statement is to be not believed in comparison to a statement of a boy. Similar is the statement of the other witness. In my opinion, the statements of these two boys cannot be given preference above the statement of Conductor Shambhu Dayal and the surviving person of the accident whose presence on the spot was never doubtful. Similar is the statement of the other witness. In my opinion, the statements of these two boys cannot be given preference above the statement of Conductor Shambhu Dayal and the surviving person of the accident whose presence on the spot was never doubtful. 19. It may be mentioned here that from the statement of AW 13 Kishan Singh, S. H. O. Malakheda it appears that on receipt of the first information report EX. 7 he proceeded on the spot. According to him the dead bodies of the two persons were lying in the middle of the road and so also the motor cycle and the third dead body of the driver of the vehicle which was under the motor cycle. This also negatives the theory that the motor cycle fell in a ditch. According to him, the motor cycle and these persons were lying at some distance from a ditch. He examined four witnesses. Dr. Madhuri Sharma in her statement stated that Ashok Kumar received injury No. 2 the dimensions of which shows that some wheel has crushed him. It may be mentioned that NAW 1 Deena was confronted with his earlier statement in police Ex. 21, wherein it was alleged that he stated that the accident took place by the truck and he resiled from it in the Court, but he denied making such statement and stated that it was written wrongly. Similarly NAW 2 Huru has stated that he did not give police statement Ex. 22 mentioning that the accident took place from the truck and it has been mentioned wrongly. He stated that he did not say in the police that truck No. RJA 2936 was going on a fast speed and if it has been mentioned, it has been mentioned wrongly He confessed at the end of the statement that he has come to give statement at the instance of truck owner Madan Lal and he pointed out Madan Lal in the Court. Obviously the present one is a case where these two boys have been tampered with after their police statements and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in placing reliance upon their testimony. Mr. Obviously the present one is a case where these two boys have been tampered with after their police statements and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in placing reliance upon their testimony. Mr. Jain pointed out that in the seizure memo it has been mentioned that the truck had blood stains and there were some scratches, but since the seizure memo has not been proved, I will not like to place reliance upon it. 20. In my opinion, the statements of Conductor Shambhu Dayal and the sole survivor of the accident Anand Kumar provide clinching evidence of the fact that the accident happened with the truck and it was on account of negligence of the driver of the truck, who was driving the vehicle with fast speed. It should not be forgotten here that even these two defence witnesses examined by the non-applicants though had resiled from the police statements where they alleged that there was accident between the trade and motor cycle, but have atleast stated that a motor cycle and a truck passed and the motor cycle was ahead the truck. According to them both the trucks which came near the motorcycle fell in a ditch. The version of Hum is, ^^nksuks Vªd eksVj lkbdy ls cprs gq, vkxs fudy x,A tc Vªd vkxs fudy x, rks eksVj lkbdy [kìs esa pys tkus ds dkj.k mldk cSysUl fcxM+ x;kA eksVj lkbdy ij pkj vkneh FksA eksVj lkbdy [kìs esa fxj x;kA Similarly Deena ANW-1 has stated- ^^brus esa nks Vªd lM+d ls fudys mlds ihNs ,d eksVj lkbdy vk jgk FkkA eksVj lkbdy dk cSysUl fcxM+ x;k vkSj eksVj lkbdy [kìs esa fxj x;kA 21. From the above it is clear that these two witnesses have been won over and they have resiled from their police statements and gave the statement which was wholly inconsistent with the site inspection made by the S, H. O. where he found that the theory of falling of motorcycle in a ditch was wholly concocted and not only the dead bodies, but the motorcycle also were lying in the middle of the pucca road. 22. 22. I have got no hesitation in holding that if the motorcycle along with persons riding on it would have fallen in the ditch, atleast the motor cycle should have been recovered from the ditch and out of four persons who fell in the ditch atleast one or two must have been recovered from the ditch. Contrary to it the S. H. O. has stated that the motorcycle and dead bodies were not in the ditch but were lying in the middle of the road. This very important circumstance should have been considered by the Tribunal, because whereas witnesses may lie, but the inherent circumstances of the case provide clinching proof of the facts pointed out by Mr. Jain, has approached this case as if it was a criminal trial and rejected the testimony of the eye-witnesses including the sole survivor of the unfortunate tragedy and independent Conductor of another bus in which immediately the sole survivor was taken to Rajgarh on purely imaginery, superficial and perfunctory grounds. I have repeatedly held that the cases of claims compensation in accidents are to be dealt with by the Tribunal in a liberal manner and standard of proof in a criminal case should not be applied. In all social welfare legislations which are meant to compensate in such tragedy must be considered by the Tribunal liberally. 23. Now the question comes that when the accident has happened on account of collision of the truck and motorcycle and the truck driver was driving it with a fast speed, whether the other persons who were on the motor cycle are also responsible for negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, who was taking four persons on a motor cycle. 24. So far as the legal representatives of other deceased except Arvind Kumar are concerned, they are not concerned with the negligence of Arvind Kumar even if held to be proved, because they had not committed any negligence as such. 25. It is not in dispute that the motorcycle was Java and it is not meant for taking four passengers on it. In view of this the negligence of Arvind Kumar, who was driving this vehicle is inherent and requires no proof. 25. It is not in dispute that the motorcycle was Java and it is not meant for taking four passengers on it. In view of this the negligence of Arvind Kumar, who was driving this vehicle is inherent and requires no proof. The finding of the Tribunal that no proof has been adduced suffers from the invalidity that if from the admitted facts a finding of negligence can be arrived at, it is not necessary to record any evidence. From the evidence of the claimants themselves it is proved that Arvind Kumar was driving the vehicle and he has taken three more persons on this small motorcycle. I would, therefore, hold the deceased Arvind Kumar liable for contributory negligence on account of which this accident took place. 26. While deciding issues Nos. 2, 7 and 10 the Tribunal has discussed the evidence of MadanLal, Ismail and Sitaram. According to Madan Lal he purchased the truck from Ismail and Sumer Khan on October 4, 1977. Ismail has supported it. According to the Insurance Company the accident took place on October 19, 1977 and before it on October 4, 1977 Ismail had sold this truck to Madan Lal and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. The Tribunal has held that the truck was registered in the name of Ismail and there is no evidence of the sale. The witness has admitted that the tax is deposited by Ismail. The Tribunal has rightly held that since no sale was proved and it was not proved that Ismail in any manner has ceased to be the owner of this, the liability of Insurance Company and Ismail would continue. Issue No. 7 was not pressed and was therefore, decided against the non-applicants and the Insurance Company. Issue No. 10 was not decided in view of the fact that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no collision between the truck and the motor cycle. 27. I would, therefore, hold that since the sale of the truck to Madan Lal has not been proved and the registration both in fact and law stand in favour of Ismail, therefore, Ismail is liable for payment of the compensation and no liability can be fastened on Madan Lal. 28. 27. I would, therefore, hold that since the sale of the truck to Madan Lal has not been proved and the registration both in fact and law stand in favour of Ismail, therefore, Ismail is liable for payment of the compensation and no liability can be fastened on Madan Lal. 28. The truck is insured with United India Fire and General Insurance Company and, therefore, Ismail as well as United India Fire and General Insurance Company are liable to pay the compensation so far as truck is concerned. 29. So far as the motorcycle is concerned, it is insured with National Insurance Company. The insurer has died in this accident when he was driving this motor cycle and the question is whether for the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, who had himself died in this case, the Insurance Company can be made liable. Mr. Bhartiya has pointed that since the insurer is not a party, the Insurance Company is not liable, because the privity of contract is between the insurer and the Insurance Company. In this connection he cited the judgment of Karnataka High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Parvathamma (1). In this case the insured died two years prior to accident. At the time of accident the vehicle was being used by some other person. The claimants did not implead the legal representatives of insured as parties to the petition but proceeded against the person who was using it. The question was whether Insurance Company should satisfy the award. In that case M/s. Moola Rangappa & Sons was in control of the vehicle at the time of the service of the summons in that case and they were made party. The Insurance Company was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. While making an award against M/s. Moola Rangappa & Sons the Tribunal gave a direction that the Insurance Company was also jointly and severally liable. 30. The Karnataka High Court held that under a policy of insurance if liability is fastened on the person or persons insured, then Insurance Company would indemnify. The principal requisite condition to ensure the liability on the insurer is that there should be liability imposed on the insured. 30. The Karnataka High Court held that under a policy of insurance if liability is fastened on the person or persons insured, then Insurance Company would indemnify. The principal requisite condition to ensure the liability on the insurer is that there should be liability imposed on the insured. The summons was first sent in this case to one Totada Eswarappa C/o M/s. Moola Rangappa & Sons, and & note was made that he had died two years back. It was also argued by Mr. Bhartiya that there are series of cases that no decree can be passed against the Insurance Company unless there is award against the insured. By and large the above principle admits of no doubt, but the question is when an insured dies in an accident whether the Insurance Company can avoid the liability on the ground that the insured has died. 31. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that under the law of torts no liability can be fastened on the legal representative for the negligence, rashness, omissions of the father. Mr. Bhartiya fairly conceded that he is not in a position to say anything contrary to this law, but he amended his statement by saying that benefit of the insurance policy can be taken by the legal representatives and therefore, it is liability of the legal representatives. 32. Obviously nothing has been shown for coming to a finding that under the law of torts the compensation could have been claimed by the claimants from the legal representatives of the deceased Arvind Kumar, who died while driving the motorcycle along with other deceased at the time of accident. In the absence of any authoritative pronouncement. I find it difficult to hold that under the law of torts the legal representatives of the deceased can be made liable to pay compensation. 33. The next question which comes for consideration is whether in typical case of the present type where the insured died in an accident, the Insurance Company can avoid liability of payment of compensation on the ground of their liability is restricted to indemnify the liability of the insured. 34. I am of the opinion that the third party liability in such cases cannot be avoided when the Insurance Company has been made the party before the Tribunal. 35. Mr. 34. I am of the opinion that the third party liability in such cases cannot be avoided when the Insurance Company has been made the party before the Tribunal. 35. Mr. Bhartiya argued that the passenger sitting on the pillion is not covered by the policy. In support of his contention he referred to the case report-ed in K. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Sankara Narayanan (2). In this case it was held that the policy was not produced. In the present case Ex. AW 15/1 is the policy of National Insurance Company Ltd. This policy is a comprehensive insurance policy. 36. Mr. Bhartiya pointed out that Section 2(l)(a) of this policy mentions that the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the motorcycle against all sums including claimants cost and expense which the insured had become legally liable to pay in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person but except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Company shall not be liable. From the above Mr. Bhartiya submits that the words any person should mean third party and since the vehicle was registered for two persons, according to him, it would cover the risk of two persons only. Mr. Bhartiya further submitted that by any person he means third parties and the passenger sitting on the vehicle as a driver or the pillion is not a third party. In my opinion, "any person" is comprehensive enough to include all and the policy being comprehensive policy it would cover the risk of all. 37. In view of the above the submission of Mr. Bhartiya cannot be accepted. 38. The present one is a case where there was negligence of the driver of the truck primarily and since the driver of the motorcycle took four persons, it would a case of composite negligence. In case of composite negligence compensation can be realised by the claimants from any one of the two and it is not necessary to apportion the liability. 39. Now it is to be considered what compensation is to be awarded. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- to each. Deceased Ashok Kumar was 21 years of age and was unemployed, unmarried having completed I.T.I. His father was 45 years of age. 39. Now it is to be considered what compensation is to be awarded. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- to each. Deceased Ashok Kumar was 21 years of age and was unemployed, unmarried having completed I.T.I. His father was 45 years of age. His mother was 43 years of age. His expected income has been assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 395/-. 40. As per the recent expectancy of age, the father and mother would have lived upto 70 years. Thus Ashok Kumar would have given the benefit to the father and the mother upto a period of 25 years. The income being Rs. 395/- and assuming that he would spend on himself at least Rs. 195/-, the parents would have obtained benefit of Rs. 200/- per month, which comes to Rs. 2,400/- per year. Applying the multiple of 25 years this amount comes to Rs. 60,000/-. 41. In the case of Arvind Kumar, he was 22 years of age and was Manager earning Rs. 500/- at that time, out of which Rs.400/- spend on him. The father was of 48 years and the mother was 43 years. Again taking the expectancy of age as 70 years, I would like to apply the multiple of 25 years. Here also the amount would come to 100 x 12 x 25=30,000/-. 42. Prem Prakash was 22 years of age. He was unmarried and unemployed He was reading in B Com. (Final). He has completed, the course of instrumentation and was in I.T.I. His mother was 60 years of age at the time of accident. According to the evidence recorded, Prem Prakash would have earned in all Rs. 450/- to Rs. 475/- in addition to over time. Om Prakash brother of the deceased has given an example of a person of similar qualification who was earning Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 1600/-. In the beginning he would have paid atleast Rs. 150/- to his mother and father and then the same would increase of income. ........ 43. I would, therefore, hold that Prem Prakash would have earned about Rs. 500/- per month at least, out of which he would have given Rs. 200/- to his mother. Since his mother was of 60 years at the time of accident and the expectancy of age is 70 years, she has been deprived of the benefit for ten years. 43. I would, therefore, hold that Prem Prakash would have earned about Rs. 500/- per month at least, out of which he would have given Rs. 200/- to his mother. Since his mother was of 60 years at the time of accident and the expectancy of age is 70 years, she has been deprived of the benefit for ten years. The compensation to be paid to him would be, therefore, 200 x 12 x 10= 24,000/-. 44. In the case of Arvind Kumars death since the National Insurance Company was not a party before the Tribunal, the liability cannot be fastened on the National Insurance Company. 45. The result of the above discussion is that in the case of death of Ashok Kumar and Prem Prakash in addition to Ram Karan and Ismail, who would be liable to pay the compensation allowed as above, the National Insurance Company and United India Fire and General Insurance Company will also be liable to pay the compensation and since it is a case of composite liability, the claimants would be entitled to recover compensation from both of them. Since in Arvind Kumars case National Insurance Company was not a party, the liability would be only of United India Fire and General Insurance Company in addition to that of driver Ram Karan and owner Ismail. 46. It is made clear that liability in each case of the United Insurance Company would be limited to Rs. 50000/- but the liability of the National Insurance Company in the cases where it has been made liable would be unlimited. 47. The amount should be paid within a period of three months from today failing which the claimants would get interest at the rate of 12% on the amount awarded, from the date of the claim till the date of realisation. The claimants would also get costs from the non-applicants in each case.