CHANAN SHAH Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a claimant's appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment and decree of Sri A.B. Mathur, District Judge, Nainital (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) dated 20th March, 1978 in Claims Petition No. 60 of 1976.

(2.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the abovenoted appeal are that on 24-3-1976 the claimant's son named Vijay Kumar at about 5.45 P.M. was going on a cycle when he was knocked down by truck No. U.P.M. 4473 owned by respondent No. 1 Kuldip Singh Anand. Respondent No. 2 Malkhan Singh was the driver of the truck at the relevant time. Respondent No. 3 New India Assurance Company, Kashipur, district Nainital was the insurer of the vehicle bearing No. U.P.M. 4473. The claimant was the Manager of the State Bank of India, Kashipur. His son Vijay Kumar was aged about 15 years and was a student of class IX in Udairaj Hindu Intermediate College, Kashipur. The aforesaid Vijay Kumar was going on a cycle towards the north on the station road on 24-3-76 when he was knocked down by the truck bearing No. U.P.M. 4473 which was coming from behind. It had been alleged that the truck was running at a fast speed and was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver who did not blow any horn. The aforesaid Vijay Kumar suffered serious multiple injuries due to the accident and died by the time he had reached the hospital. At the time of accident the claimant was 50 years old. His father had died at the age of 65 years and his mother was alive, who was aged 72 years. The deceased was a brilliant student and a good sportsman. He was well built and energetic. He had never failed in any examination and had used to secure 1st or IInd position in his class. It has also been alleged that the deceased might have started his career as a probationary officer in the State Bank of India with a salary of Rs. 750/-. The claimant-appellant had prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000/- due to the death of his son Vijay Kumar alias Babu aged 15 years.

(3.) THE respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also did not accept the manner of accident alleged by the claimant and they put the claimant to strict proof-They also asserted that. the claimant was neither legal representative nor heir of the deceased according to Hindu Law, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain the petition for compensation. It was also stated that the deceased was only a student of class IX therefore, the compensation claimed was exhorbitant.