LAWS(ALL)-2001-1-37

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. VIBHA DEVI

Decided On January 04, 2001
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANPUR Appellant
V/S
VIBHA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat dated 21-3-1993 in Claim Petition No. 114 of 1991 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,75,000.00 has been awarded to the claimant-respondents.

(2.) The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents on 12-4-1990 with the allegations that their father Brij Bhushan, who was going on a cycle with his eldest son Arun Kumar towards his village Pailwar, while reached near culvert near Rajpur Roadwayas Bus Stop, the truck No. UTW 9228 dashed against him with the result he received severe injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries within half an hour of the accident leaving behind him one6 unmarried daughter and two minor sons, i.e. the claimant-respondents. Rajendra Singh was the driver and he was driving the truck rashly and negligently. The wife of the deceased (mother of the claimant respondents) had already expired. The claimant-respondent were minors at the time of the accident. The deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 1,000.00 per month from his hotel business. They claimed a sum of Rs. 5,28,000.00 as compensation.

(3.) The driver of the truck filed written-statement and he stated that he was not driving the truck in question on the relevant date. The owner of the truck also filed written-statement and denied that the accident had taken place from the vehicle in question. The appellant also filed written-statement and took the same pleas as were taken by the owner of the truck. It further took the plea that the claim petition was barred by limitation. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident had taken place as alleged by the claimant-respondents due to which Brij Bhushan expired and on appreciation of evidence, held that the claimant-respondents were entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,75,000.00 as compensation. This order has been challenged in the present appeal.