Case: Smt. Rajendra Kumari &amp; Anr Vs. Smt. Shanta Trivedi &amp; Ors

2. In the night between December 3 and 4, 1966, Hari Singh, since deceased, the husband of appellant 1 and the father of appellant 2, hired an Ambassador car belonging to the Rajasthan Mahila Parishad for going to his native village at Kangeti in Madhya Pradesh from Udaipur in Rajasthan. When the car had gone 21 miles from Udaipur, it collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction. It skidded and hit against a tree. As a result of the accident, Hari Singh died on the spot and one Shanker Lal who was also travelling in the same car and happened to be the friend of Hari Singh received some injuries3. At the time of his death, Hari Singh was only 25. He left behind him his wife, appellant 1 who was only 18 and appellant 2, his daughter, then only a child4. The appellant filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur, claiming a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation5. The Tribunal came to the finding that the accident which resulted in the death of Hari Singh was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. The Tribunal disposed of the issue as to the claim of the appellants for compensation of Rs. 1 lakh as followsClaimants of Case No. 3 of 1967 have claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh which appears to be excessive. In my opinion an amount of Rs. 10, 000 would be adequate. The issue is decided accordingly6. The Tribunal has not given any reason why the claim of the appellants for compensation of Rs. 1 lakh could not be accepted. At this stage, it may be stated that the case of the Insurance Company which was opposite party 3 before the Tribunal was that its liability was only up to a sum of Rs. 4000. Issue No. 7 that was framed by the Tribunal relating to the liability of the Insurance Company is extracted below7. Whether the liability of opposite party 3 cannot exceed Rs. 4000 in each case7. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 7 is as followsThe learned counsel for the claimants conceded that the liability of the Insurance Company could not exceed Rs. 4000 in each case. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the opposite party 38. Upon the said findings, the Tribunal made an award for Rs. 10, 000 in favour of the appellants against the opposite parties including the Rajasthan Mahila Parishad and the driver of the truck assessing the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 4000 only9. Being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Rajasthan High Court challenging only the adequacy of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. An was also filed by the Rajasthan Mahila Parishad, the owner of the car. The High Court, as stated already, affirmed the award and dismissed the appeal and the. Hence this appeal by special leave

Reasoning:
While estimating the benefits derived from the various business activities one cannot lose sight of the contingencies of losses and fluctuation in income that occur in such types of business. We do realise that the loss of a husband to a young Rajput girl is something which no amount of money can compensate, yet in the circumstances of the case, we do not find that the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal was too high or too low. We feel that it represents the just and proper compensation11. We are unable to understand the reason given by the High Court in finding that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal was quite adequate. The High Court has not disbelieved the evidence of appellant 1 that her husband had an income of Rs. 1000 a month. It is true that Hari Singh was a student at the time of his death, but he was also looking after the business of his father and earning a sum of Rs. 1000 a month. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of appellant 1 about the income of Hari Singhis decision, in our opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. It has been already noticed that before the Tribunal the appellants had categorically admitted that the liability of the Insurance Company extended to Rs. 4000 only. In the circumstances, we do not think that it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to file the policy.