(1.) CM 8164/2004 (early hearing): Application is allowed and disposed of. The matter is taken up for hearing today. FAO 143/1998
(2.) FAO 143/1998 is directed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No.4/1988 whereby the learned tribunal vide its order dated 5.12.1997 has awarded a sum of Rs.78,000/- together with the interest at the rate of 8% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation.
(3.) The facts of the case are : "2. The petitioners claimed to be the parents of Rajesh Kumar, a 22 years old youth who is stated to have died on 11.11.87 on account of an accident that is stated to have taken place at Rambagh, G.T.Karnal Road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S.Alipur at 4.15 p.m. It is alleged the deceased Salesman of Biscuits etc. with an income of Rs.1,000/- p.m. was moving on his cycle at slow speed on correct side of the road when the truck came in high speed in rash/negligent manner from opposite direction and hit against the cycle, resulting in the cyclist receiving multiple injuries and dying as a result. The petitioners claimed Rs.15.00 lacs as compensation besides Rs.15,000/- under section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act (old Act). 3.Respondent No.1 and 2 in their written statement jointly filed on 17.1.89 admitted the factum of respondent no.1 being the driver of the truck at the relevant time. It also disclosed the title of the truck vesting in respondent no.2 and 2-A. The facts relating to accident are denied and therefore, liability was disputed. It was claimed the vehicle was insured as per particulars already furnished. Respondent no.2-A on being impleaded and summoned took up identical pleadings through his separate written statement filed on 14.12.89. Respondent no.3 on its part claimed the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and 2-A, but it was not insured in the name of respondent no.2. Admitting the facts to the above effect, facts relating to accident were also disputed and the claim termed as exaggerated. The insurance company took up a specific plea to the effect that the truck was driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence. The insurance company thus sought to be absolved. On the aforesaid pleadings, my learned predecessor put the case to trial through following issues framed on 25.1.90 :- Issues