NARAIN DEVI Vs. DEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dated 29th April, 1964. The short facts necessary for this parpose are that a son of the appellant herein, one Jagdish Kumar, was standing behind truck No. PNG 1861 in Naya Bazar near Suri Goods Transport Company, Delhi, on 22th July, 1960 at 7-5U P. M. when truck No. DLG 3749 driven by respondent No. 1 in the course of his employment with respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck, while reversing, dashed into truck No. PNG 1861 and crushed Jagdish Kumar who was standing behind it. Jagdish Kumar sustained injuries and succumbed to them in lrwin Hospital where he was taken. The present appellant filed a claim for compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 from the respondents alleging that the accident resulting into the death of Jagdish Kumar was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who, while reversing his truck, did not take care to see that the road on the back was clear. Respondent No. 3 in the application was the insurer of the truck concerned.

(2.) The claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondents on serveral grounds - On the basis of those objections, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following six issues :-

(3.) Issue No. 1 was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant herein by a separate order dated 27th July, 1&63. The Tribunal decided issue No. 2 in favour of the present appellant herein. On issue No. 3 the Tribunal held that the accident resulting into the death of the deceased was caused due to negligent driving of Dev Raj respondent who did not have the proper look out on the road while reversing his truck without the aid of any person giving him signal to move on, Issue No. 4 was decided against the respondents on the ground that there was no evidence led on that issue. Under issue No. 5, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1950.00 with costs to the appellant herein. It is against this quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal that the present appellant has preferred this appeal to this Court.