CHHAYA GUPTA Vs. SHAILENDRA KUMAR MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Hardoi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.167 of 2010, rejecting the application moved by the appellants for payment of compensation.

(2.) Kamalkant son of Babu Ram Gupta was agriculturist and also doing certain business as source of livelihood. On 24.4.2008 at about 5:30 a.m., in the morning, he was going from his residence situated at Mohalla Gipsanganj, Railwayganj, district Hardoi to his village Jairajpur on his motorcycle bearing No.U.P.30-H-6628. Brother of deceased Kamalkant namely, Karunakant was also going to village on his own motorcycle. When they reached near a petrol pump on Hardoi-Sitapur Road, a maruti car bearing Car No.U.P.30-J-2839 coming from Sitapur side, alleged to have been driven rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle of Kamalkant resulting in the accident in question. In the said accident, the backbone of deceased Kamalkant was fractured and later on, he was brought by Karunakant to the District Hospital of Hardoi. The doctors of District Hospital, Hardoi referred Kamalkant to King George Medical University, Lucknow. An F.I.R. was registered as case crime No.281/2008 under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Dehat. On account of fracture of vertebral column, Kamalkant got paralysed and ultimately, succumbed to injuries on 15.7.2009. In consequence thereof, the dependents of the deceased Kamalkant, namely, wife Smt. Chhaya Gupta, son Atri Gupta, daughter Km. Anshi Gupta, and mother Smt. Vidya Devi approached the Tribunal and preferred the claim petition. While filing written statement, the owner and driver of the maruti car denied the accident. Respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd., also denied the factum of accident. However, at the time of accident, it has not been disputed that the vehicle maruti car was insured by the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

(3.) After considering the pleading on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-