LAWS(DLH)-1997-2-20

KAPILA UPPAL Vs. KISHAN DUTT

Decided On February 28, 1997
KAPILA UPPAL Appellant
V/S
KISHAN DUTT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant No. 1 and her husband late V.P.Uppal had filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi. During pendency of the claim, V.P. Uppal died and his LRs (Appellant Nos. 2 to 4) were brought on record. The appellants, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide its award dated 4.7.1987 have preferred this appeal U/s 110-D of the M.V. Act. The respondents No. 1 & 2 have also filed cross objections against the impugned award.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 27-5-1979 at, about 1.30 a.m. Dr. Atul Kumar Uppal was coming from Safdarjung Enclave on his scooter bearing No. DHZ-8432. The scooter was driven by Dr. Atui Kumar Uppal and Anil Kumar Kakkar was sitting on the pillion seat. When they were passing at Shanker Road, from the opposite direction, a D.M.S. van bearing registration No. DHG- 5770, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 at an excessive speed, rashly and negligently, came on the wrong side of the road and knocked down the said scooter. Dr. Atul Kumar Uppal and Anil Kumar Kakkar were rushed to the Willington Hospital, where they succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by them in the said accident. The deceased Dr. Atul Kumar Uppal was the son of the claimants and had passed MBBS examination and was doing internship in the Safdarjung hospital and after completion of his internship, he would have easily got a job for the initial salary of Rs. 1800.00 per month, the deceased, it is averred, would have continued to provide financial help to the claimants, who arc his parents. On account of the said accident, the claimants, having lost the bread winner, filed the claim of Rs. 5 lacs before the claims tribunal.

(3.) The claim was contested by the respondents. They denied that the accident took place on account of any rash or negligent act of the respondent No. 1 in driving the offending van. It was inter alia alleged that respondent No. 1 was driving the bus at a normal speed but it was the deceased, who came from the opposite direction driving his scooter at a fast speed on wrong side of the road and dashed against the van and as such he was himself responsible for the accident.