AMI CHAND Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi dated 23.07.1999, whereby a sum of ' 32,000/- was awarded in favour of the appellants and against the respondents with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the Claim Petition till realisation.

(2.) Concisely, the facts are that on 16.07.1988, at about 12.15 p.m, the bicycle of one Shakti Kumar, aged 12 years, was hit by a truck bearing No.DHL-5657, being driven rashly and negligently by the respondent No.1, on account of which Shakti Kumar sustained injuries to which he succumbed. The appellants are the father and mother of the said Shakti Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who filed a Claim Petition under Sections 110A & 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation in the sum of ' 3 lacs against the respondent No.1-driver, the respondent No.2- owner and the respondent No.3-Insurance Company. The learned Claims Tribunal, after conducting an enquiry against the said respondents, held that the accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1, against whom FIR No.10/88 had also been registered under Sections 279/304A IPC. On the aspect of quantum of compensation, after noting that the deceased was a student of sixth standard at the time of the accident, the Tribunal awarded damages for the death of the child in the sum of ' 30,000/- with funeral expenses of ' 2,000/-, in all, a sum of ' 32,000/- with interest thereon. It, however, exonerated the Insurance Company from the payment of compensation on the ground that the respondent No.1-driver, Jai Prakash held no driving licence at the time of the accident.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of the Claims Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal awarded a very meagre amount of compensation, in the sum of ' 32,000/- only, and on the further ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving licence and was not disqualified from holding a driving licence, and as such, all the three respondents, namely, the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle, ought to have been saddled with the liability to pay the award amount to the appellants.