MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for self and for H. N. Seth, J.) :-This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 24th May, 1973 awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in claim petition No. 147 of 1968. By this order a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal to Smt. Krishna Devi by way of compensation with interest at 6 per cent per annum. The award was made in the circumstances appearing hereinafter.

(2.) OMPAL Singh, aged about 19 years, who was the son of claimant Smt. Krishna Devi, was returning on a scooter on August 8, 1965 at about 11.15 a. m. to his house from the shop of his father. As he reached near the Kavi Nagar Railway Crossing, on Hapur. Ghaziabad Road a Bus with registration No. DLP 3622 coming at a high speed from the opposite direction dashed against the scooter, as a result where of Om Pal Singh died on the spot. This vehicle was owned by the appellant's father Sardar Bachan Singh. In the claim petition, giving rise to the present appeal, the said Bachan Singh was impleaded as opposite party No. 1. The appellant was substituted in his place during the pendency of the proceedings before the tribunal during which Bachan Singh died. The vehicle was insured with the Northern India General Insurance Company Limited, which is respondent No. 2 in this appeal. The purchase of the vehicle had been financed by respondent No. 3, namely, Motor and General Finance Limited, while it was being driven by respondent No. 4, Harchand Singh. According to the case set up by the claimant, Smt. Krishna Devi, the accident had been caused on account of the rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was being driven. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed as compensation by her. The defence of the present appellant before the Claims Tribunal was that the real owner of the vehicle was the Motor and General Finance Limited (respondent No. 3) which had financed its purchase particularly because he had yet to complete the payment of the purchase price. According to the defence taken by the appellant, the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased who was carrying a dog on it and that, inasmuch as, the deceased was only a student and was not helping his father in his business, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation on account of the death of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the husband of the claimant was carrying on his own business and was a well-to-do person and that, on that account as well, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. The defence of respondent No. 2, the Northern India General Insurance Co. Ltd., inter alia, was that it was not established that the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a driving licence and the accident was not notified to it. It was, therefore, not liable for payment of any amount as compensation. In any case, its liability could not exceed any amount beyond Rs. 20,000/-. Respondent No. 3 set up the plea that though it had financed the purchase of the vehicle, yet as the same was under the control of the purchaser who had already paid the major portion of the amount due by the time the accident took place, and only a fraction of the amount remained to be paid, the liability was entirely of the purchaser. The driver, namely, respondent No. 4, Harchand Singh, did not put in any defence and the case proceeded ex-parte against him.

(3.) WE find on the evidence on record that the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident in which Om Pal Singh lost his life had been caused due to the rash and negligent manner in which vehicle No. DLP 3622 was being driven, and not on account of any rash or negligent act on the part of the deceased in driving the scooter. The two witnesses, namely, Raghuraj Singh (PW 2) and Jogendra Barar (PW 3) who were eye-witnesses of the accident, have given a consistent version of the accident indicating that the vehicle was coming at a very fast speed and while passing the railway line bumped, went towards the right side and dashed against the scooter of the deceased Om Pal Singh. On account of the impact, Om Pal Singh died on the spot as also the dog which had accompanied the deceased on the scooter. The vehicle itself was damaged and fell down in a ditch on the side of the road and turned turtle. The driver, Harchand Singh (Respondent No. 4) appeared before the tribunal as DW 1 and in his deposition stated that he was driving the vehicle at a moderate speed of 30 km. per hour and while crossing the railway line, applied his brakes and the bus was in his control. According to him, the scooter driven by the deceased, Om Pal Singh struck against the left mudguard of the bus and with a view to avoid the accident, he (Harchand Singh) took the vehicle to the other side but could not control it, with the result that it fell down in the adjoining ditch. He, however, stated that the dog as well as Om Pal Singh died on the spot.