BABU RAM SHARMA Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment will dispose of FAO No. 141/91arising from the award dated 27/03/1991 of Shri J.P.Sharma, Judge MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Delhi as well as cross objections filed on behalf ofrespondents/claimants.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Nirmal Singh aged 32 years. Sub Inspectorin Delhi Police died in a road accident on 14/12/1984. The claim petition wasfiled by his widow Smt. Kamla Devi for self and on behalf of her minor daughterKm.Deepali and minor son Master Digvijay Singh besides Smt. Maha Devi and ShriKanwar Singh who were the parents of the deceased. Shri Kanwar Singh expiredduring the pendency of the petition before the Tribunal and his name wasaccordingly deleted. The claim for compensation was made in the sum of Rs. 10lakhs with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum and costs of the petitionagainst the driver Kesho Ram and the owner Babu Ram and the insurer of thevehicle National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5 herein. The deceasedNirmal Singh was driving his two wheeler scooter bearing No. UST 1217 on 14/12/1984 and it is alleged that he was driving at a slow speed on left sideof the road with pillion rider Ramji Lal at about 6.30 p.m. He reached near LibraPetrol Pump, G.T.Kamal Road, Delhi. At that time truck bearing No. DHG 2751driven by appellant No. 2 came from behind at a very fast speed and hit the scooterwithout blowing any horn and without giving signal with the result that theoccupant of the scooter fell down and Nirmal Singh received serious grievousinjuries. The driver fled away from the spot with his truck and even knocked downone cyclist after hitting the scooter. The deceased Nirmal Singh was removed tohospital where he succumbed to injuries on 21/12/1984. lt was pleaded thatthe income of the deceased was Rs. 1600.00 per month besides other benefits towhich he was entitled as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. He was aged about 32 yearsat the time of his death and was a man of robust health and simple habits. It wasfurther contended that he was contributing all his earnings to his wife who wasspending the same for the welfare and benefit of the family. The deceased wasexpected to work for a number of years and due for next promotion in theDepartment.

(3.) The written statement was filed by appellant Babu Ram, who was owner ofthe truck and it was contended that the truck was not involved in the accident andthe deceased was driving the scooter rashly and negligently and died in consquenceof his accident with cyclist and that the driver of the truck was falsely implicated.The Insurance Company, respondent No. 5, raised number of preliminary objections including the plea of limited liability. It was further stated that truck No.DHG 2751 was not at all involved in the accident as it was under repairs with themotor mechanic. It was submitted that the deceased was driving his scooter rashlyand negligently and died as a result of the accident with the cyclist.