SUSHILA GOEL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been filed against the order dated 28th February. 1987 passed by Shri H.P. Sharma, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1 whereby the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 86.400.00 with costs in favour of the petitioners-appellants and against the respondents,

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that late Shri P.C. Goel, the deceased, who was holding the rank of Under-Secretary in Rajya Sabha Secretariat, on 17th July, 1974 at about 7.45 P.M., while going towards Lodhi Colony on left hand side of the road leading from Khan Market to Lodhi Colony, opposite to block No. 20, a bus bearing registration No. DLP 5597. driven by respondent No. 1. came from behind at a very fast speed and banged into the scooter driven by the deceased. Since the bus was being driven rashly and negligently, the deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries as a result of which he succumbed to death in the hospital At the time of his death, he was 50 years and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1600.00 . Had the deceased continued in service, but for death, he was likely to be promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary in the month of August, 1974 and he had further chances of promotion to the post of Joint Secretary/Additional Secretary. The deceased had left behind him his widow, petitioner-appellant No. 1 and chidren petitioners-appellants 2 to 5, as legal representatives. One married daughter of the deceased has not been made a party in the case.

(3.) According the petitioners, the driver of the vehicle, respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 2, and the insurer, respondent No. 3, are all jointly and severally liable to them. The petitioners-appellants had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,00,000.00 as compensation. Respondents 1 & 2 did not appear before the Tribunal despite service of notice. Respondent No. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the petition and denied the factum of accident further they had denied that the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No. 1. Further they had denied that the petitioner had any promotional chances, in case respondent No. 3 is held liable to pay compensation, it could only be limited to a sum of Rs. 50.000.00 .