SRI RAJIV AGARWAL Vs. HOSIYAR SINGH BAJDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short 'the Act') arise out of the judgment and award dated 5 -11 -1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Almora (for short the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal has decided M.A.C. Petition Nos. 17 of 1995, 18 of 1995, 19 of 1995 (Hosiyar Singh Bajeli Vs. Shri Rajiv Agarwal and two others as well as M.A.C. Petition No. 20 of 1995, which have arisen out of the same motor accident and all the four claim petitions have been decided by a common judgment, therefore, these three appeals arc being decided by this common judgment for convenient as the controversy involved therein is the same.

(2.) RELEVANT facts or the case are that the claimant Hosiyar Singh Bajeli filed three separate claim petitions before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/ - in respect of death of Govind Singh, Rs.1,80,000/ - in respect of death of Smt. Radhika Devi and Rs. 60,000/ - for the death of Master Pawan Singh, who were son, daughter -in -law and minor son of the claimant, who died as a result of injuries suffered by them due to rash and negligent driver or h1nker No. UP 01 -0346 on 2 -9 -1994 at 11.20 a.m. at Darariya (Ranman) within the limits of Police Station Someshwar. The owner of vehicle Rajiv Agarwal is the appellant. The driver of the vehicle is Daya Kishan Saklani and the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company, who are respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively.

(3.) THE driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle contested the case by filing their written statements separately. The owner has admitted the ownership of the 1hnkcr and its due insurance with the Insurance Company. He has denied that the claimant is the legal heirs of the deceased. It was denied that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent' driving of the vehicle by its driver, rather the accident is said to have taken place due to failure of brakes. It was asserted that the driver that he was not responsible for the accident and the accident took place as the steering of the Tanker became jam and the brakes failed to function. Due to agitation for creation of the State of Uttarakhand, no vehicle was available to the deceased, who stopped the Tanker and requested him to carry them to Someshwar and on humanitarian ground, they were allowed to travel in the "Tanker without realizing any fare from them.