N.P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award of Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, dated 15.4.1989 in Misc. (Claim) Case No. 146 of 1980 whereby the Additional Claims Tibunal directed the appellant, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/- to the claimant-respondent with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
2. The facts giving rise to this application are that on 3.12.1979 at about 11.45 a.m. Sunny Rampal of Jhumri Telaiya, husband of the claimant-respondent, was going to Charhi in his Ambassador Car bearing registration No. BHM 10 being driven by his driver Kameshwar Yadav. When the car reached near Padma Gate on Patna-Ranchi National Highway the bus of the appellant Corporation bearing registration No. BRV 6315 coming from opposite side being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car of the deceased which caused extensive damage to the car and injuries to the driver and Sunny Rampal who was sitting on the rear seat of the car. Both the injured were removed to the Hazaribagh Hospital where Sunny Rampal succumbed to the injuries. The claimant-respondent filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. with whom the car was insured and the appellant, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, appeared and contested the claim. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. in its written statement has contended that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. There was no laches and negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Therefore, National Insurance Co. Ltd. was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant-respondent. The appellant Corporation in its written statement challenged the maintainability of the claim petition and it was contended that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The appellant Corporation was, therefore, not liable to pay compensation to the claimant-respondent.
4. Learned Additional Claims Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and the appellant Corporation was liable to pay the compensation totaling Rs. 3,84,000/- to the claimant-respondent with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
5. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation, has contended that no issue was framed as to whether the car was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Therefore, there was no proper adjudication of the case for want of proper framing of the issue. The contention of Mr. Roy is not well-founded.
6. It appears that an issue was framed as to whether the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus No. BRV 6315. Therefore, no separate issue was required to be framed as to whether the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car. Issue No. 2 fully covered the adjudication on the point as to which of the drivers of the vehicles was responsible for the accident.
7. Mr. Roy further contended that the accident had taken place on account of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Therefore, the Insurance Company was also liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-respondent. The contention of Mr. Roy does not hold good in view of the report of M.V. A. (Exh. 3). From Exh. 3 it appears that the car had suffered extensive damage on account of head-on collision of the two vehicles. It further transpires from the report, Exh. 3, that heavy vehicle had dashed against the car. The appellant Corporation had led evidence of thedriver of the bus who has stated that his bus was standing when the car being driven in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against his bus. The evidence of the driver of the bus, however, cannot be accepted on account of the fact that no such averment was made by the appellant Corporation in its written statement that the bus was standing and the car had dashed against the bus. It is, however, evident from the evidence of Vijay Kumar Pariwal, AW 3 and Rajendra Prasad, AW 5, who have deposed as eyewitnesses to the occurrence that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. The evidence of AW 3 and AW 5 and Exh. 3, the report of the M.V.I., amply prove the fact that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus and there was no laches and negligence on the part of the driver of the car. It is, thus, evident that it is not a case of contributory negligence and the National Insurance Co. Ltd is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation to the claimant-respondent.
8. Mr. Roy has further contended that the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant-respondent is excessive. The deceased was not income tax assessee rather the firm of which the deceased was a partner was income-tax assessee.
9. It is, however, admitted that the deceased was a contractor and his firm was income tax assessee. This indicates that the firm of the deceased had a flourishing business. It is also obvious that the deceased was a man of status and he possessed car and was a man of means. The deceased met with an accidental death at the young age of 30 years.
10. In view of the status of the deceased and the standard of his living, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of Accidents Claims Tribunal. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.