SHYAM DULARI ALIAS SAM DULARI W/O LATE BHISHAM SINGH AND FIVE OTHERS Vs. ATUL KUMAR SINGH S/O P N SINGH AND FOUR OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the impugned award dated 9-12-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Dehradun (for short the Tribunal), whereby the claimant-appellants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and payable by the opposite party-respondent no.2-New India Assurance Company, with whom the vehicle in question was insured as mentioned in the impugned award.

(2.) Relevant facts, giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellants-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 7,10,000/- before the Tribunal alleging therein that Bhim Singh alias Bhim Ram (since deceased), the husband of the claimant-appellant no. 1 lost his life in a motor vehicle accident involving Bus No. UP 06- 0012, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. According to the claimants, the deceased was going on Tractor No. U.P. 12C-2989 on 8-11-2002. At 8.10 p.m. when the said Tractor reached near toll barrier at Haridwar bye-pass road, the offending bus hit the tractor with the result that Bhim Singh alias Bhim Ram and other persons suffered grievous injuries. Bhim Singh and one other person Doda died on the spot. The offending bus was insured with O.P. No. 1 Atul Kumar Singh and the same was duly insured with the O.P.No.2-New India Assurance Company. The O.P.No. 3Sunil Chandra is the driver of the offending bus. It has also been alleged that the O.P.No. 4 Harpreet Singh is the owner of the tractor and O.P.No. 5-Balendra Singh is the driver thereof, but they were not at fault. The tractor was stranded on Kuchcha side of the road at the time of accident. The claimants also alleged that the deceased was earning Rs. 3500/- from his employment with Bharat Traders and he was aged 35 years at the time of his accidental death.

(3.) The opposite parties filed their written statement and contested the claim petition on different grounds mentioned in their written statements. The owner of the offending bus denied the facts of the case and pleaded that the bus itself was hit by the tractor and that there was no negligence by the driver of the bus in question. The Insurance Company of the bus filed its written statement and pleaded that the driver of tractor No. UP-12C-2989 had no valid licence and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of tractor trolley. The driver of the bus-O.P. No.3 has taken almost the same pleas as taken by the opposite party no.1. The O.P.Nos. 4 and 5, owner and driver of tractor trolley filed their joint written statement and asserted that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus and that there was no negligence oh the part of the driver of tractror trolley.