PRABHATI Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the mother of the deceased Gulzari Lal who died in a motor accident caused by truck No. DLG 9828 on 15-9-68 The deceased was going from Tuglaq Road towards Mehrauli Road Track No. DLG 9828 coming from the opposite direction hit the deceased in the middle of the road when he was trying to cross-over to the Mehrauli Road. It is claimed that the truck in question did not below any horn and was being driven at a reckless speed. Deceased Gulzari Lal was removed to the Safdarjung Hospital where he died on 18-9-68. The deceased received multiple injuries according to the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem. According to the evidence of Dr B.B. Aggarwal, PW/2. who conducted the post mortem the death was caused due to shock and multiple injuries including fracture of left femur Before the Tribunal the Police had produced the FIR, the photographs and the iite plan regarding the accident. They confirmed the fact of the accident.

(2.) The claimants have examined two witnesses, Manohar Lal PW/3 and kanhaya Lal PW/4 Their statements were recorded by the Police immediately after the accident. I am taken through the evidence of the witnesses and I am satisfied that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated their evidence. No evidence was produced on behalf of the respondents whatsoever. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the truck in question resulting in the death of Gulzari Lal.

(3.) Cross-objections are filed on behalf of the New India Insurance Company, with whom the truck was insured. As a matter of fact the lnsurance Company filed common written statement on behalf of the driver of the truck, the owner of the truck and on its own behalf. The liability was tried to be disowned. There is no substance in these objections as no evidence was produced by the respondents in the trial and the evidence of the eye witnesses is unimpeachable. Even otherwise the Insurance Company on its own cannot file a cross-objection on merits challenging their liability in view of Section 96 of the Act As stated earlier, there was a common defence of the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company before the Tribunal Although the plea of limited liability was taken by the insurance Company in the written statement, no policy was produced either by the owner or by the Insurance Company to substantiate their claim in the written statement. I, therefore, hold that the New India Assurance Company is liable to pay the full compensation to the claimants.