SUDERSHAN DEVI Vs. MOHAMMAD YASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 4.8.1989 of learned Single Judge in FAO 79/80 - Sudarshan Devi and another v. Mohd. Yasin and others - dismissing the appellants' appeal and thereby affirming the order of Shri B.L. Garg, Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No.62/82 by which the Claims Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938. The facts in brief are that on 18.3.1982 a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 was preferred by the appellants being the widow and son respectively of one Bhagwan Dass Taneja son of Kala Ram Taneja, residing at Sector 6, Quarter No.174, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, claiming a sum of Rs. 2 lacs towards the compensation for the death of Bhagwan Dass Taneja, who was stated to have expired in a fatal accident on 13.12.1981. It was alleged that on 13.12.1981 the deceased was going on his cycle to ward his house when he was hit by a Matador Van bearing No.DEG 7860 on Palam Marg, Near Vasant Vihar D.T.C. Bus Depot at about 6.00 P.M. The Matador Van owned by respondent No.2 was being driven rashly and negligently and with great speed without due care and without horn by its driver Mohd. Yasin, respondent No.1. After the accident, respondent No.1 took the deceased along with his cycle in Matador Van towards Palam Airport and later took the Matador Van along with the body of the deceased and cycle to Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Leaving the body in the Matador Van, respondent No.1 absconded. The police captured the abandoned Matador at Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. The dead body was brought for post-mortem on 17.12.1981. Till then it was lying unidentified. Post-mortem was conducted on 17.12.1981. Deceased, who was about 54 years of age maintained good health and was to remain in service for another five years since he was due to retire on 31.3.1986. Widow of the deceased and major son claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs towards compensation along with interest thereon. Respondent No.3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was also arrayed as a party since vehicle in question at the relevant time was insured with it.

(2.) Claim petition was resisted by respondents 2 & 3, who filed their replies separately. It was denied that the vehicle in question was concerned or connected in the accident or that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No.1. It was stated by respondent No.2 that he had wrongly been implicated in the case. No such accident occurred with the vehicle in question. The Company claimed that the claim for compensation was beyond statutory limit of liability which under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 and in terms of the policy was limited only to Rs.50,000.00 . It was also claimed that respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence. Jagmohan Rai was impleaded as respondent No.4, who claims to be the eldest son of the deceased and in his reply he claimed that out of compensation he be awarded a sum of Rs. 1 lac along with interest thereon. The following issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal on 15.3.1983:

(3.) On 15.11.1983 two more additional issues were framed by the Tribunal. They are as under: