CHANDRA KALA Vs. MURARI LAL SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants, widow, sens and a minor daughter, have filed this appeal against the dismissal of their claim petition made under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Dehradun. THE claimants had prayed for an award in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation, on account of the death of Shri Narain Das Arora, against the owner, driver and the Insurer M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

(2.) THE claimants alleged in the claims petition that Shri Narain Das Arora, husband of appellant no. 1, Smt. Chandra Kala Devi and the father of the other appellants, was going on a scooter on the Chakrata Road, Dehradun, a busy locality, at about 11 in the morning of 4th October, 1976. THE motor vehicle No. USM 846, which was proceeding ahead of the scooter driven by Shri Narain Das Arora, was being driven rashly and was suddenly stopped and the driver flung open his door, with the result that the scooter collided with the car and the scooterist fell down on the road and received injury on the head. THE driver of the car, moved away the scooter from the middle of the road and made his exit from the spot. THE injured person was removed to a Clinic nearby and was later taken to a Nursing Home, where he succumbed to his injuries three days later.

(3.) THE Claims Tribunal framed five issues. After considering the evidence the Tribunal held that the collision took place with the standing car, when the driver was in the Clinic and not with the door of the said Car and that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver and the claimants are not entitled to be awarded any compensation. In answering issue no. 3, the Tribunal held that the scooter collided with the Car and Shri Narain Das Arora fell down. THEre was a fracture in the temporal and perietal bones with internal haemorrhage, which was the cause at the death. Consequently, the death of Narain Das Arora was caused by the accident. In regard to the question of damage caused to the claimants, the Tribunal held that even if the version to the claimants was accepted, it would bo a case of contributory negligence and as such the total amount which could be awarded as damages was Rs. 36,500/-, but in view of the findings on issues 1 to 3, no amount was liable to be awarded to the claimants. Aggrieved the claimants have come up to this Court.