SAROJ BALA Vs. FIRST SECRETARY USSR EMBASSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 16/11/1987 whereby the claim of the appellants for compensation for the death of Narinder Kumar Malhotra, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 in a road accident alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of a car belonging to the USSR Embassy by its driver, was dismissed. A few facts giving rise to this appeal are:

(2.) The claim petition was originally filed against the USSR embassy as well as the First Secretary of the Embassy who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, however, because of the diplomatic immunity claimed by them, their names were deleted from the array of the respondents and case was contested only by the insurance company. The insurance company in the written statement did not deny the fact of the accident, however, it was stated that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the embassy car by its driver but was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of another car/taxi. It was stated in the written statement that when the embassy car being driven by the First Secretary of the Embassy was coming from Ashoka Hotel side to Yashwant Place side on the left side of the road at a speed of about 45 Kms. per hour, a motor bike coming from Yashwant Place towards Ashoka Hotel suddenly took an unexpected turn to the right side of the road and the driver of the car in order to avoid the head on collusion with the motor bike immediately turned the same to the right because on the left of the car there was a cyclist driving near the pavements. It was further stated that as a result of the car turning towards the right, the motor bike struck the embassy car on the left side door and the driver of the motor bike fell down near the left side pavement of the road. It is submitted that efforts were being made to take the motor bike driver to the hospital for treatment for scratches which he might have received as a result of his fall on the road, however, in the meantime another car probably a taxi came at a high speed and hit the motor bike driver kicking him forward. It was, therefore, submitted in the written statement that the driver of the embassy car was neither negligent nor the accident was caused for his want of care and farsight. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(3.) Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 were decided in favour of the appellants. While discussing Issue No.5, the Tribunal observed that the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,08,000.00. However, while deciding issue No.2, it was held by the Tribunal that the appellants had failed to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the embassy car and since the embassy car was held not to be responsible for the accident, no compensation was awarded in favour of the appellants. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the present appeal.