LAWS(ALL)-1977-11-18

ISHWAR DEVI Vs. REOTI RAMAN

Decided On November 30, 1977
ISHWAR DEVI Appellant
V/S
REOTI RAMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a fatal accident case. One Mahesh Vijai Singh left his house situated in Bazar Jhau Lal for Ghasiyari Mandi, Lucknow on the night intervening 4th and 5th May, 1968 at about 9.40 P.M. He was going on foot. When he reached Kothi No. 16 on R. K. Tandon Road, Lucknow in front of Kotwali, Qaiserbagh, he was knocked down by motor-cycle No. UPZ 2719 which was being driven by Reoti Raman Rastogi. The injuries which he sustained proved to be fatal and he died after about four hours of the accident. He was survived by his widow, a son and a daughter who were his dependents. Shrimati Ishwar Devi, his widow, was about 50 years old whereas his daughter Km. Kumkum was 16 years old and his son Dinesh Kumar was 14 years old. Mahesh Vijai Singh, the deceased, was a licensed typist. He carried on his profession in the premises of this Court at Lucknow and it was alleged that his monthly income therefrom was about Rs. 400 per month. Smt. Ishwar Devi filed a claim of compensation for Rs. 50,000 under S. 100-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on 3rd July, 1968 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lucknow.

(2.) THIS petition was contested by Reoti Raman and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively. They filed separate written statements. Reoti Raman pleaded inter alia that the widow of the deceased had not made other dependants as parties and was not entitled to claim compensation on behalf of them. He also pleaded that the accident in question did not take place because of his negligence or rash driving; rather the deceased, who was walking on the footpath on the left side, suddenly changed his mind and tried to cross the road when the motor-cycle of the contesting defendant Reoti Raman had come very close to him and in spite of applying brakes he could not avert the accident. It was submitted that the compensation was highly exaggerated.

(3.) THE contention that the application was not maintainable was rejected on the finding that the application for compensation had been filed by the widow on her behalf as also on behalf of her son and daughter but the application was rejected on the ground that it was not established that Reoti Raman was driving the vehicle negligently and rashly at the material time. Aggrieved, Smt. Ishwar Devi has preferred this appeal.