UNION OF INDIA Vs. K S LAKSHMI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to also as claimant nos. 1 and 2) are respectively the husband and son of one rajalakshmi. On 22. 5. 1997 she was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration No. Dl2-s-d6929 as a pillion rider. Her son (respondent No. 2 herein) was the rider of the motor cycle. According to them, when the motor cycle was proceeding near asc centre, lower agaram road, Bangalore, a military truck bearing registration No. 91-d-89858x which was proceeding in the same direction, suddenly turned to the left in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor bike on the right side; and as a consequence, the said rajalakshmi fell down from the motor cycle and the truck ran over her, as a result of which she died at the spot. Feeling aggrieved, her husband and son filed mvc No. 2566 of 1997 claiming a compensation of Rs. 29,00,000 against the driver (respondent No. 2 before the tribunal and respondent No. 3 in this appeal) and the owners (respondent nos. 1, 3 to 5 before the tribunal and appellants in this appeal) of the truck. The claimants contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the military truck. It was further contended that claimant No. 1 was retired and claimant No. 2 was a student and the deceased who was aged 53 years and employed as an officer in andhra bank getting a salary of Rs. 16,852 per month, was their source of income.

(2.) THE appellants herein resisted the claim. They contended that there was no negligence on the part of the truck driver. According to them, the motoi cycle and the truck were proceeding in the same direction; that the motor-cyclist who was proceeding at a high speed tried to overtake the truck on the left side, went over a slushy portion of the road and lost control of the vehicle and the motor cycle skidded as a result of which the said rajalakshmi fell down from the vehicle which resulted in the accident. Respondents denied that the military truck ran over the deceased. Lastly, it was contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.

(3.) ON the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: