ALIMUNNISHAN Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Appeal From Order arises out of Claim Petition No. 33 of 2002 (Smt. Alimunnishan and 8 Ors. v. Om Prakash and Anr.) filed on account of death of Naqvi Ahmad in the accident that had taken place on 17th November, 2001 with Truck No. U.P.44-A/2098 owned by Om Prakash Singh.

(2.) The said Claim Petition No. 33 of 2002 was filed by Smt. Alimunnishan and 8 others under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with the averments that the deceased Naqvi Ahmad was the sole bread earner of the family; on 17th November, 2001 he went to Sultanpur for business purposes but Truck bearing No. U.P.44-A/2098 which was being negligently driven by the driver hit the husband of Smt. Alimunnishan as a result of which he and many others died and many were injured; the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month from the business; First Information Report could not be lodged in time since medical treatment was immediately required to be provided to the injured and, therefore, as the bread earner had succumbed to the injuries, the claimants suffered irreparable injury and appropriate compensation should be awarded to them.

(3.) A reply was filed to the claim petition. Opposite Party No. 1 Om Prakash Singh stated that he was the owner of the truck bearing No. U.P.44-A/2098; truck was insured with the National Insurance Company Branch Rai Bareilly upto 18th December, 2001; truck was being driven by Taufeeq Ahmad Khan, who had a valid and effective driving license; truck was carrying cement from Tikeriya Industrial Area to Faizabad when the 'Kamani' of the truck broke down as a result of which the truck lost balance and overturned killing two persons and inuring three; the injured were taken to the hospital by the police; passengers were not sitting in the truck at the time of accident and the owner had also given instructions to the driver not to permit any person to sit in the truck and assurance had also taken from the driver to this effect; the driver had informed the owner that Naqvi Ahmad was not sitting in the truck at the time of accident; that there was no violation of the terms and conditions contained in the Insurance policy; that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving and that the owner was not responsible for payment of any compensation.