JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - The above mentioned seven appeals have been brought by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. In all, seven claim petitions were brought seeking compensation. The necessary details with relevant number of FAOs with regard to the claim petitions of the appellants is as under:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAO NO. Claim Claimants’ name Amount On account of Petition claimed as Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2712/1998 No.5/1998 Prem Lata Rs.3.00 lakhs For the injuries suffered by her in the accident. 2713/1998 No.3/1998 Ganga Bishan Rs.2.00 lakhs For the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 2714/1998 No.2/1998 Smt. Kamla Devi and Rs.4.00 lakhs For the death of their Ganga Bishan daughter Seema alias Shakuntla 2715/1998 No.6/1998 Jatinder Kumar and Rs.75,000/- For the damage Manoj Kumar suffered by their tractor. 2716/1998 No.4/1998 Rajinder Kumar Rs.3.00 lakhs For the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 2717/1998 No.7/1998 Ramesh Rs.2.00 lakhs For injuries suffered by him in the accident. 2718/1998 No.1/1998 Kamla Devi Rs.2.00 lakhs For injuries suffered by her in the accident. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. On 13.5.1995, Seema deceased and other injured persons were travelling in a tractor trolley bearing registration No.HR-40-2221. They were coming from their fields to their house in village Ardana. The tractor was being driven by one Lila Ram at a moderate speed keeping in view the traffic rules and safety of other users of the road. When the tractor was near Bus Stand, Ardana and had almost turned towards village Ardana, a truck bearing registration No.DL-1GA-6266 came from the side of Jind driven in a rash and negligent manner. It had struck against the trolley on account of which the hook of the trolley was broken and the truck dragged the trolley upto some distance on account of which it turned turtle and all the occupants suffered injuries. Seema alias Shakuntla died at the spot. 3. In claim petition No.1 of 1998, Kamla Devi claimed that she suffered injuries on interior portion of her body, hands and legs. She took treatment from General Hospital, Assandh and her treatment was still going on at the time of filing of the petition. She claimed to have spent Rs.10,500/- in her treatment so far. It is claimed that she was doing household work and was helping her husband in agricultural work and was saving Rs.2,000/- per month. She has suffered disability on account of the accident. 4. She claimed to have spent Rs.10,500/- in her treatment so far. It is claimed that she was doing household work and was helping her husband in agricultural work and was saving Rs.2,000/- per month. She has suffered disability on account of the accident. 4. In claim petition No.2 of 1998, Seema is claimed to be a 13 years old daughter of the claimants, who was studying in 3rd standard at the time of accident. It is claimed that she was helping her parents in household and agricultural works and a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month was saved by her. She was hard working. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was spent on transportation of her dead body and last rites. 5. In claim petition No. 3 of 1998, Ganga Bishan has claimed that he suffered injuries on his waist and chest. He took treatment from General Hospital, Assandh and spent a sum of Rs.15,000/- in his treatment. He used to take land of others on contract basis and used to cultivate the same. He was also in the business of sale and purchase of animals and his income was Rs.6,000/- per month. He has also suffered permanent disability. 6. In claim petition No. 4 of 1998, Rajinder Kumar has claimed that he has suffered injuries on his forehead, face and back. He was brought to Civil Hospital, Assandh where he spent a sum of Rs.2,000/- in his treatment. According to him, his treatment was still in progress at the time of filing of the petition. He was a student of first standard and was helping his parents after doing the school work. He was saving a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month on account of his work. 7. Prem Lata, in claim petition No.5 of 1998 has claimed that she suffered grievous injuries on her legs and serious injuries on her vital parts of the body. She took treatment from General Hospital, Assandh which was still continuing. She has spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- in her treatment. She was helping her family in household work as well as agricultural work and was saving a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. 8. Jatinder Kumar and Manoj Kumar, the owners of tractor bearing registration No.HR-40-221 claimed compensation for damage caused to their tractor in claim petition No.6 of 1998. She has spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- in her treatment. She was helping her family in household work as well as agricultural work and was saving a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. 8. Jatinder Kumar and Manoj Kumar, the owners of tractor bearing registration No.HR-40-221 claimed compensation for damage caused to their tractor in claim petition No.6 of 1998. They claimed that in the accident, their tractor was badly damaged and many parts of the tractor were to be replaced or repaired to make it roadworthy. They spent a sum of Rs.35,000/- in its repairs. During the course of repairs, the tractor could not be used for agricultural purposes for a long time and on that account Jatinder Kumar and Manoj Kumar suffered a loss of Rs.40,000/-. 9. In the last claim petition No. 7 of 1998, Ramesh, the injured has claimed that he received injuries on his legs and other parts of the body. He received treatment from General Hospital, Assandh and spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- in his treatment which was still continuing. He was 14 years of age and was a student of 4th standard at the time of accident. He was helping his father in agricultural work after doing the home work and was saving a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month. He was a brilliant student and was participating in sports activities. 10. The claim petitions have been resisted by the driver of the offending truck and its insurer. Respondent No.2, the owner had been proceeded against ex-parte. It is denied by respondent No.1 that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck. It is, however, claimed that driver of the tractor was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and took turn all of a sudden towards village Ardana from main Jind-Assandh road without giving any indication of light or hand as required by law. It is claimed that the truck was being driven by him at a moderate speed. 11. The insurer, respondent No.3 has denied the accident to have been caused by the driver of the truck. It is denied that respondent No.1 had any role in causing the accident. It is denied that respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 11. The insurer, respondent No.3 has denied the accident to have been caused by the driver of the truck. It is denied that respondent No.1 had any role in causing the accident. It is denied that respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is further claimed that the truck was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Respondents No.1 and 2 are claimed to have colluded with the claimants. The claim is said to be highly exaggerated. 12. The claim petitions were consolidated and the following consolidated issues were framed by learned Motor Accidents Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, “the Tribunal”). “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Satbir Singh, respondent no.2 while driving truck No.DL-19-A-6266 resulting into injuries to Kamla Devi, Ganga Bishan, Rajinder Kumar, prem Lata and Ramesh and death of Seema as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is a proved a). Whether Kamla Devi claimant-MACT case No. 67/95 is entitled to any amount of compensation on account of injuries, if so, how much and from whom?OPP b). Whether Kamla Devi and Ganga Bishan claimants-MACT case No. 68/95 are entitled to any amount of compensation on account of death of Seema, if so, how much and from whom?OPP c). Whether Ganga Bishan claimant-MACT case No. 69/95 is entitled to any amount of compensation on account of injuries, if so, how much and from whom?OPP d). Whether Rajinder Kumar claimant-MACT case No. 70/95 is entitled to any amount of compensation on account of injuries, if so, how much and from whom?OPP e). Whether Prem Lata claimant-MACT case No. 71/95 is entitled to any amount of compensation on account of injuries, if so, how much and from whom?OPP f). Whether Ramesh claimant-MACT case No. 73/95 is entitled to any amount of compensation on account of injuries, if so, how much and from whom?OPP g). Whether Jatinder Kumar claimant- claim petition No. 18 of 1997 is entitled to any amount of compensation on account of compensation on account of damage caused to his tractor as alleged ?OPP 3. Whether the Insurance Company – respondent no.3 is not liable to make payment of compensation in view of preliminary objections taken in the written statement? OPR. 4 4. Relief.” 13. The parties led their respective evidence. Whether the Insurance Company – respondent no.3 is not liable to make payment of compensation in view of preliminary objections taken in the written statement? OPR. 4 4. Relief.” 13. The parties led their respective evidence. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal concluded under issue No.1 that the accident took place due to contributory negligence on the part of driver of the tractor trolley bearing registration No.HR-40-2221 and driver of the truck bearing registration No.DL-1GA-6266 and both were eqully responsible for the accident. After recording the aforesaid finding on issue No.1, learned Tribunal took up all the issues together and assessed the compensation in all the cases and allowed the same at 50% thereof as per the following table. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAO NO. Claim Claimants’ name Amount Amount allowed Petition assessed as on account of Compensation contributory negligence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2712/1998 No.5/1998 Prem Lata Rs.4,600/- Rs.2,300/- 2713/1998 No.3/1998 Ganga Bishan Rs.7,425/- Rs.3,712/- 2714/1998 No.2/1998 Smt. Kamla Devi and Rs.70,000/- Rs.35,000/- Ganga Bishan 2715/1998 No.6/1998 Jatinder Kumar and Rs.13,616/- Rs.6,808/- Manoj Kumar 2716/1998 No.4/1998 Rajinder Kumar Rs.5420/- Rs.2710/- 2717/1998 No.7/1998 Ramesh Rs.3,250/- Rs.1,625/- 2718/1998 No.1/1998 Kamla Devi Rs.9,328/- Rs.4664/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was a road emerging from the main road, on which both the vehicles were there. According to him, the truck driver should have in his mind the possibility of tractor having a turn to the road that was emerging form the main road towards village Ardana. He has submitted that the tractor had almost turned towards that road when the truck driver had hit the trolley on account of which the hook of the trolley was broken and the trolley turned turtle causing injuries to Kamla Devi and others on account of which Seema died. He has submitted that learned Tribunal was not justified in holding that the accident was on account of contributory negligence of the tractor driver. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is unexceptional. According to them, the evidence on the record clearly shows that the tractor driver turned to the approach road without giving any signal. 16. Lila Ram, the driver of the tractor appeared as PW-2. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is unexceptional. According to them, the evidence on the record clearly shows that the tractor driver turned to the approach road without giving any signal. 16. Lila Ram, the driver of the tractor appeared as PW-2. He has stated that when he was near bus stop of village Ardana, a truck bearing registration No.6266 came from behind i.e., from the side of Jind and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. He has stated that he had already taken turn towards his right hand of the road and had crossed the pucca road. He has, however, admitted that some portion of the trolley was still on the road when the driver of the truck had hit the trolley on account of which the trolley was separated from the tractor as the hook was broken. Ganga Bishan, PW-3 is also a witness of the accident. He has stated that the tractor had already turned towards the village when the truck came from the side of Jind at a fast speed and had hit the tractor trolley. Similar is the statement on the part of Kamla Devi [PW-5]. 17. Satbir Singh, driver of the offending truck has appeared as RW-1 and has stated that he was driving his truck from Jind to Karnal at a normal speed on his left side of the road. He has further stated that when his truck reached village Rodana, a tractor was going ahead of his truck. He further stated that the tractor driver turned his tractor all of a sudden towards right side without giving any signal on account of which, he applied brakes but despite his best efforts, the truck had hit against the trolley. 18. From the evidence on record, it emerges that the accident took place at bus stand of village Ardana. The bus stand is a busy place and when a road emerges from the main road at that place, the users of road at that place should slow down the vehicle in anticipation of any such thing. In the case in hand, the driver of the tractor had taken turn to the right side. No problem occurs when a vehicle going ahead takes turn to the left. In the case in hand, the driver of the tractor had taken turn to the right side. No problem occurs when a vehicle going ahead takes turn to the left. The problem occurrs only when the vehicle takes turn to the right. Even though, the tractor driver did not give signal for taking turn to the right, the truck driver could not stop the vehicle and had hit the trolley of the tractor despite making all efforts to stop the truck. This statement on the part of Satbir Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle, shows that he could not stop the vehicle despite his best efforts and hit the trolley. It would prove that he was driving the truck at a very high speed. Driving of a truck at a very high speed while approaching bus stand, where from road emerges to a village, would clearly prove that this is a case of rash driving on the part of the truck driver. 19. In the given circumstances, the driver of the truck is clearly proved to be driving his vehicle in a rash manner and the accident is clearly shown to be an outcome of rash driving of the truck in question. In these circumstances, the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 is found to be wrong. The same is reversed and it is held that the accident is an outcome of rash driving on the part of Satbir Singh, respondent no.1 while driving truck bearing registration No.DL-1GA-6266. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that compensation awarded is on lower side. According to him, in case of death of Seema, the income of the deceased should have been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and compensation should have been assessed taking the said income of the deceased. According to him, the compensation assessed in other cases is also on lower side. 21. The submissions on the other side have been that adequate amount has been assessed as compensation in all the cases and there is no scope for enhancement of the same. According to them, except the cases of death of Seema and damage to the tractor, all the other cases are of injuries in which there is no disability. 22. 21. The submissions on the other side have been that adequate amount has been assessed as compensation in all the cases and there is no scope for enhancement of the same. According to them, except the cases of death of Seema and damage to the tractor, all the other cases are of injuries in which there is no disability. 22. In claim petition No.1 of 1998, Smt. Kamla Devi is claimed to have suffered injuries on her feet, lower portion of the legs, arms, shoulder and private parts. She was found to have received seven stitches on her private parts. The medico legal report, Ex. P17 revealed that a lacerated wound was there on left labia majora with other injuries. However, there is no evidence to reveal that Kamla Devi remained admitted in the hospital for 15 days or that her treatment continued for 4-5 months. On the record, there is only a statement of Kamla Devi in this regard which is not supported by documents. Learned Tribunal, therefore, assessed a sum of Rs.9328/- as compensation under different heads. 23. Looking to the nature of injuries she suffered on account of which she required stitches, I am inclined to increase the compensation to some extent. Therefore, I find a sum of Rs.12,000/- to be adequate compensation for the injuries suffered by Smt. Kamla Devi in the aforesaid accident. 24. In the case of death of Seema alias Shakuntla, it has been claimed by the parents of the deceased in claim petition No.2/1998 that she was a student of 3rd standard. She was aged 13 years and, therefore, she cannot be said to be a brilliant student, if at all she was studying at the relevant time. Her age was recorded as 12 years in the post mortem report, Ex. P1. In the claim petition, she was said to have been helping her parents and, thus, earning Rs.1,000/- per month. Compensation was assessed by learned Tribunal by keeping in view the no fault liability provision which allows a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. On that account, a sum of Rs.65,000/- was assessed as compensation to which a sum of Rs.5,000/- was added for expenses on last rites. 25. The claimants have lost their 13 years old daughter. They lost the love and affection of their child. The compensation appears to be on a little lower side. On that account, a sum of Rs.65,000/- was assessed as compensation to which a sum of Rs.5,000/- was added for expenses on last rites. 25. The claimants have lost their 13 years old daughter. They lost the love and affection of their child. The compensation appears to be on a little lower side. In my opinion, the claimants can be adequately compensated if compensation is assessed at Rs.90,000/-. 26. In Ganga Bishan’s case, for his injuries a sum of Rs.7,425/- has been assessed as compensation. He had claimed that he had remained admitted for 13-14 days in the hospital and spent Rs.70,000/- to Rs.75,000/- in his treatment. The copy of medico legal report Ex.P16 showed that he had suffered three injuries on his person, i.e. Multiple abrasions on left shoulder joint, posterial surface of left side of the chest and back of left side with lacerated wound on left forearm. There is no evidence that he had suffered any grievous injury. His is also not a case of suffering any permanent disability. A sum of Rs.925/- was awarded as compensation for the purchase of medicines and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. The total amount of compensation assessed is Rs.7,425/-. 27. He was a person, who was definitely having income by working in his landlord’s fields. On account of the injuries, he must have remained off the work during some period. Learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.1,000/- for loss of income which should have been more. Taking the amount assessed as compensation in a sum of Rs.7,425/- to be slightly on lower side, I find that a sum of Rs.10,000/- would adequately compensate the claimant, Ganga Bishan. 28. Rajinder Kumar had suffered two injuries as per the medico legal report [Ex. P15]. One was lacerated wound on the left fronto-parietal and occipital region and one was lacerated wound with diffused swelling on right side of abdomen. There was no evidence to show the period of his hospitalization. His pain and suffering must have been more than other persons because he had suffered injury on his head and abdomen. Learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.4,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.500/- for special diet and Rs.920/- for his medial expenses. The amount assessed for pain and suffering appears to be on a lower side. His pain and suffering must have been more than other persons because he had suffered injury on his head and abdomen. Learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.4,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.500/- for special diet and Rs.920/- for his medial expenses. The amount assessed for pain and suffering appears to be on a lower side. The appellant, Rajinder Kumar could have been well compensated if a sum of Rs.8,000/- was awarded as compensation in his favour. 29. In case of Prem Lata, she was stated to have been hospitalized for 13-14 days. As per medico legal report, Ex. P14, she was in receipt of four injuries. While one was abrasion on right knee joint, the others were abrasion and lacerated wound on thigh and other injuries. Taking into account lack of evidence to prove that she was hospitalized for 13-14 days, learned Tribunal assessed a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering and assessed a sum of Rs.500/- for special diet and a sum of Rs.100/- for medical expenses. Looking to the injuries and the value of money at the relevant time, I find that a sum of Rs.7,000/- would have been adequate compensation to her for the injuries she had suffered in the accident. 30. In case of claim petition No. 6 of 1998 brought by Jatinder Kumar and Manoj Kumar for damage suffered by their tractor, learned Tribunal has taken into account the bills for Rs.29,268.50. Despite it, the Tribunal did not allow these amounts on the ground that the insurance company assessed the loss in a sum of Rs.13,616/-. Insurance company has reason to reduce the amount of loss in order to save on its liability. Though, there is reason on the part of the claimants to inflate the amount, yet that can be taken care of by suitably decreasing the amount proved on record as expenses incurred regarding repair of the tractor. A sum of Rs.29,268.50 is shown to have been spent by way of bills, Ex. P1, P6 and P7 and taking a little amount of exaggeration therein, I find that a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be just and proper compensation payable in this case for the damage suffered by the tractor trolley. 31. In the last case, Ramesh is claimed to have suffered injuries. His medico legal report is Ex. P1, P6 and P7 and taking a little amount of exaggeration therein, I find that a sum of Rs.25,000/- would be just and proper compensation payable in this case for the damage suffered by the tractor trolley. 31. In the last case, Ramesh is claimed to have suffered injuries. His medico legal report is Ex. P13 which shows his two injuries which are multiple bruises on left hip joint and diffused swelling on left thigh. Though, Ganga Bishan, his father has stated before the Tribunal that the claimant remained hospitalized for 13-14 days, yet there was no proof of the same. Assessing a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.200/- has been assessed as compensation for special diet and Rs.50/- for medical expenses. Taking the amount assessed as compensation in a sum of Rs.3,250/- to be slightly on lower side, I find that a sum of Rs.5,000/- would adequately compensate the claimant, Ramesh. 32. In the result, the appeals succeed. Besides reversing the finding of learned Tribunal on the question of negligence and holding it to be a case of sole rash and negligence driving of the truck bearing registration No. DL-1GA-6266 by respondent No.1 as cause of the accident, I enhance the compensation in the aforesaid appeals as per the following table which shall be paid in full to the claimants: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAO NO. Claimants’ name Amount allowed on Amount of compensation account of now enhanced by this contributory court in FAOs. negligence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2712/1998 Prem Lata Rs.2,300/- Rs.7,000/- 2713/1998 Ganga Bishan Rs.3,712/- Rs.10,000/- 2714/1998 Smt. Kamla Devi and Rs.35,000/- Rs.90,000/- Ganga Bishan 2715/1998 Jatinder Kumar and Rs.6,808/- Rs.25,000/- Manoj Kumar 2716/1998 Rajinder Kumar Rs.2710/- Rs.8,000/- 2717/1998 Ramesh Rs.1,625/- Rs.5,000/- 2718/1998 Kamla Devi Rs.4664/- Rs.12,000/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33. If the amounts mentioned above have not been paid to the claimants, they will be entitled to the enhanced amounts with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as allowed by learned Tribunal and in case those amounts were already paid, the balance amount with interest at the aforesaid rate would be paid from the date of filing of claim petitions till the date of realization thereof. --------0.B.S.0------------