KAMAL JINDAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short 'the Act') against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2001 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 61 of 2000, Kamal Jindal v. Vinod Kumar, by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, I.F.T.C. Dehradun (in short 'the Tribunal'), whereby learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded Rs. 5,20,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants-appellants along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, as mentioned in the impugned order, under section 166 of the Act. Aggrieved, the claimants-appellants have come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation, on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence regarding income of the deceased and the findings of thr learned Claims Tribunal are erroneous.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that on 10/3/2000 at 3 p.m., Vinod Kumar Jindal was going from Doiwala to Dehradun along with his business goods by motor vehicle (Vikram Tempo) No.UP 07-J 0091, which was meant for carriage of goods and driven by opposite party No.5 Ganesh Rawat. When he reached near Kali Temple Harrawala, then another Vikram Tempo No. UP 07-H 5878, which was being driven by Ashok Kumar opposite party No. 2 rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction and hit the former vehicle, due to which said Vinod Kumar sustained grievous injuries and he was brought to Doon Hospital for treatment, where he was declared dead. According to claimants, the driver of the offending vehicle escaped from the spot. The report of this accident was lodged by opposite party No.5. Deceased has been stated to be businessman and was running a provision store in the name and style "Rahul Provision Store", Doiwala, thereby earning about Rs. 10,000.00 per month and was paying income tax. The deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of accident. He was the only earning member of the family and he left behind the claimants as his dependants. Hence the claimants have filed claim petition for the amount of Rs.31,60,000.00 under section 166 of the Act for compensation against the owner, driver and insurer (opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3) of the offending vehicle.

(3.) Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle), respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement and denied the allegations of the petition. They have pleaded that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. It has been denied that on the alleged day and time, no accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by their driver opposite party No. 2 hitting vehicle Vikram No. UP 07-J 0091. The injuries and consequent death of the deceased in the said accident has been denied. They have also denied that driver of the alleged offending vehicle managed to escape from the spot. It has also been pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent No.3. According to them, on the date and time as alleged, the opposite party No. 2 was driving his vehicle and when it reached on the spot, its front tyre burst all of a sudden and the vehicle stopped. In the meantime, from the opposite direction vehicle UP 07- J 0091 driven rashly and negligently came and it hit the said vehicle with the result that vehicle overturned resulting into grievous injuries to the deceased, therefore, the liability to pay compensation rests on the opposite party No. 3, insurer of their vehicle and owner, driver and insurer of the loader Vikram UP 07-J 0091.