ROSHAN SINGH Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed against the award dated 03 -10 -2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, (hereinafter referred as Tribunal'), Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 108/2001, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant against the New India Assurance Company. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation within forty -five days from the date of award.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the claimants i.e. Saheb Singh (father of the deceased) and Roshan Singh (brother of the deceased) had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging therein that on 14 -02 -1998 the deceased -Manish was going to Sabhawala from Herbertpur in a vehicle (Vikram) No. UGI 9039. At about 9:30 A.M. a bus No. UP -11B -4930 coming from the opposite direction rashly and negligently dashed the Vikarm due to which the deceased Manish sustained grievous injuries and subsequently he succumbed to his injuries. The said bus was being driven by its driver -Praveen Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. It was further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was a doctor. He was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. at the time of incident. Hence, the claim petition had been preferred by the father and brother of the deceased i.e. Saheb Singh and Roshan Singh respectively. An amount of Rs. 12,10,000/ - had been claimed as compensation. The father of the deceased had expired during the pendency of the claim petition and Roshan Lal (Appellant) alone is the claimant.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. It was further held that in absence of any documentary evidence regarding the actual occupation of the deceased as well as the income the Tribunal was left with no option except to calculate the amount of compensation according to his own assessment. It was held that since Roshan Lal (Roshan Singh) who is the brother of the deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident hence he cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased. The claimants who filed the claim petition before the Tribunal were the father and brother of the deceased i.e. Saheb Singh and Roshan Singh respectively. The father of the deceased had expired during the pendency of the claim petition and Roshan Lal (Roshan Singh) is the only claimant. It was further held that as the deceased was sole earning member in the family, then it is quite natural that after his death, the claimant must be feeling loneliness and is deprived of the company of his brother. Ultimately, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was assessed in favour of the claimant Roshan Singh (brother of the deceased) under the head of loss of love and affection in lieu of the death of his brother Manish. It was further held that the drivers of both the vehicles contributed to the accident and therefore the claimant was entitled to get the 50% amount out of the total compensation. It was further held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - to the claimant as compensation. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount to the claimant within forty five days from the date of award.