BHAGWATI DEVI Vs. ISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Judgment would dispose of F.A.O. 81/71 and F.A.O. 103/71, both of which assail the Award of Mr. Sniv Das Tyagi, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, made on January 14, 1971 in suit No. 104 of 1965, being an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called "the Act", filed by Mrs. Bhagwanti Devi and the other heirs of Mr. P.C. Sharma, who died as a result of an accident with the scooter which was being driven by Ish Kumar, respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. F.A.O. 81/71 is an appeal under section 110-D of the Act by the driver, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle for setting aside the Award, while F.A.O., 103/71 is a similar appeal by the widow and the other legal representatives of the deceased for the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) In the application the legal representatives made a claim for Rs. 40,000.00 from the respondents as compensation on account of the death of the deceased on the allegations that the deceased, who was working as an Assistant in the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Government of India and was 36 years of age, was hit on March 3, 1965 at 9-35 A.M. by scooter No. DIM 7491 driven rashly and negligently by Ish Kumar, respondent No. 1 belonging to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was further alleged that the accident occurred when the deceased having got down from a DTU bus near Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi was crossing the road to go over to the other side where his office was situated. It is further alleged that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the said scooter by Ish Kumar. The deceased received brain injury as a result of the accident and died on March 5, 1965, leaving a widow and 4 unmarried daughters. Originally, Ish Kumar was shown to be the owner of the scooter but eventually respondent No. 2 was impleaded as a respondent on the discovery that the scooter, though being driven by Ish Kumar, was owned by respondent No. 2.

(3.) The claim of the petitioners was contested by the driver, the owner and the insurer of the scooter, inter alia, on the ground that the scooter was not being driven rashly or negligently and that the accident was caused because of the sudden appearance of the deceased from between the buses which were parked on the left of the road and when the deceased, unmindful of the coming traffic from his right, tried to cross the road. It was further alleged that on account of the aforesaid act of the deceased, the right hand of the deceased struck with the left hand of Ish Kumar with the result that the deceased fell on the ground and sustained the injuries. It was denied that the deceased received any impact with the scooter. A further plea was raised that the application, as against respondent no. 2, was barred by time.