LAWS(ALL)-2010-6-17

SURESH KUMAR SINGHAL Vs. KUMUD TRIPATHI

Decided On June 04, 2010
Suresh Kumar Singhal Appellant
V/S
Kumud Tripathi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals have been filed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and decree dated 11.5.1984, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 63 of 1981 where the compensation of Rs. 1,60,000 was awarded along- with interest @ 9% per annum.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 6.9.1980 at about 9.00 p.m. in the night, Sri Pramod Kumar Tripathi, (hereinafter referred to be as deceased) was travelling in a Taxi No. U.P.-G 6256 from Lucknow to Kanpur. When the Taxi reached near tri-junction of Maurawan, Kanpur-Lucknow Road, a truck was coming from the opposite side and its drizzling light creates problem to the taxi driver. So, he immediately took slight turn towards footpath and colluded with the Truck No. U.P. D. 4780, which was parked on the road with no back light or signal and as such, the accident occurred. The deceased sustained injury and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 38 years and was earing Rs. 1,350 per month at the time of his death, he was serving as Assistant R.T.O. in U.P. Government service.

(3.) The wife of the deceased has filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal after cross-examining the witnesses and other evidences finally observed that this is the case of contributory negligence of both the vehicles. So, the Truck and Taxi owner are liable to pay compensation of rupees one lac jointly and severally. Both the vehicles were insured with the New India Assurance Company and as per the then law, the liability of the insurance company was also confined to Rs. 10,000 + 50,000=Rs. 60,000 pertaining to both the vehicles. Not being satisfied with the award given by the Tribunal, the insurance company as well as the Truck owner have filed above mentioned cross-appeals before this Court. The Taxi owner is not appearing in this Court in spite of sufficient service upon him.