Mr. S.L. Gupta and Mr. Ram Ashray, Advs. v. HASNU & ORS .....

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- has been awarded to the claimants.

2. The accident dated 14th May, 2004 resulted in the death of Naim aged 18 years. The deceased was survived by his father who filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal.

3. The deceased was travelling in a Tata 407 tempo bearing No.HR-46-8313 along with stock of fish from village Kohli towards Delhi. When the tempo reached near the Canal at Village Sorkhi, Haryana, the back wheel of the said 2009:DHC:2732 tempo busted due to which the vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death of deceased.

4. The learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and applied the multiplier of 15 to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.2,25,000/-. Rs.50,000/- has been awarded towards loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. The total compensation is awarded Rs.2,75,000/-.

5. The appellant has challenged the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal on the short ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and, therefore, the appellant is not liable.

6. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle with stock of fish and, therefore, he was not a gratuitous passenger.

7. PW – 2 has specifically deposed in this regard. The deceased was a fish seller. The appellant has not led any evidence to prove that there was any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of the insured.

9. In this view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J JULY 16, 2009 mk