VED KUMARI Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of FAO Nos.177/96, 161/96, 166/96, 168/96, 178/96 and 179/96 respectively. All these appeals have been filed against the Award dated 1st December, 1995 passed by Shri Charanjit Jawa, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The Award related to three cases arising out of the same accident.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 30th April, 1984 Bhanu Pratap, since deceased with his father, Rajinder Pal, petitioner in claim petition No.360 and Susheel Kumar, petitioner in claim petition No.359 were going on Motor cycle No.DIW-6 driven by Susheel Kumar. It was about 4.20 p.m. when the motor cycle was proceeding on the main University Road from Mall Road for going towards Shakti Nagar. When the Motor cycle was on the crossing of the main road with Flag Staff road, main gate of university, at that time a car No.DHA-3861, came from Flag Staff Road and took abrupt right hand turn at a high speed for going towards Mall Road. In that process, right hand side of the front portion of the car struck against the motor cycle. As a result of the impact the motor cycle alongwith the occupants thereon were thrown away on the road. All the three persons received injuries. Bhanu Pratap remained admitted in the hospital from 30th April 1984 to 3rd June, 1984. He died thereafter due to injuries received as a result of the accident. He was 16 years of age and was a student. It is alleged that he had a bright career and was the only son of his parents who are claimants Rajinder Pal and Ved Kumari. It was contended that he was likely to do business with high expectations and could have drawn Rs.3000.00 per month. Susheel Kumar as well as Rajinder Pal who were also injured claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident. In all the cases it was alleged that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, respondent no.1 Kishan Lal. The car was owned by respondents 2 and 3 under whom the driver was employed. The respondents in their written statement admitted the factum of accident but pleaded that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car but that the accident took place after the car emerged from the Flag Staff road at slow speed and crossed Vishv Vidhyalaya road and took the proper lane and started moving towards Mall Road. There were three persons on the motor cycle which was alleged to be in violation of the traffic rules. There was no scope for the car to gain high speed in the area, due to the restriction imposed by the Delhi Development Authority with regard to the movement of the traffic in that area. Further it was pleaded that the car crossed the eastern lane of the Vishv Vidhyalaya Marg from the gate of the Flag Staff road and reached the proper traffic lane, a truck was going from North to South i.e. from Mall road and towards Chouburze near the crossing, the truck slowed its speed when the car took the western lane for its movement towards Mall Road, a motor cycle DIW-6 which was going just behind the truck tried to overtake the truck from the right side at a high speed and it dashed against the car. The occupants were also not using helmets.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:-