SUDHA NANGIA Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against a common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated October 22, 1973. The appellant in F.A.O.No.32/74 has been awarded compensation of Rs. 11,286.15P from Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally and two months lime has been granted for depositing the amount and failing to deposit the said amount by two months the award was to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till the date of realisation.The appellant in appeal No.32/74Dr.SudhaNangia has filed this appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation whereas Respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, M/s. Vanguard Insurance Co.Ltd. has come up in appeal No.37/74 praying that the award made against it should be set aside inasmuch as the insurance company and the driver and owner of the scooter which was involved in accident with the truck insured with the appellant was liable for compensation as the accident took place on account of gross and negligent driving of the scooter by the scooter-driver and not on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on October 29, 1969. Dr. Sudha Nandia alongwith her husband Dr. Vijay Nandia were proceeding on a three-wheeler scooter No. DLR 9466 on ring road and the scooter had reached the crossing of Ring Road at Maya Puri industrial Area that suddenly a truck No. DLL4812 be ing driven by Respondent No. 1 came at a high speed and it struck for 25 feet. The scooter had over turned and the appellant and her husband had received injuries in that accident. The said truck is admittedly owned by Respondent No.2

(3.) The factum of accident having been caused between the said two vehicles is not in dispute. The short question which arose for decision was whether the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck or it was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the three wheeler scooter by Respondent No. 1 or whether both the drivers were rash and negligent in driving then respective vehicles which resulted in the said accident. The facts that the truck was owned by Respondent No. 2 and it was insured with the insurance company, appellant in the other appeal, are not in dispute and the fats that the three wheeler was owned by Sh. Jagdish Chander-Respondent No. 5 and was being driven by Sh. Surinder Kumar - respondent No. 4 and the same was insured with insurance company respondent No. 6 are not in dispute.