JASWINDER KAUR Vs. RICHHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the claimants against the award dated 31.3.1998 passed by the 2nd Addl. Member, M.A.C.T., Indore, in Claim Case No. 184 of 1997 whereby the claim application of the claimants was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the appellants was that on 10.1.1996 the deceased Gurupal Singh, husband of the appellant No. 1, father of the appellant No. 2 and son of appellant No. 3, driving the truck No. MIF 0195 belonging to the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2, went 15 km. away from Hindoli, District Bundi (Rajasthan), truck No. MP 09-K 9351, belonging to the respondent No. 3 and insured with the respondent No. 4, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the truck No. MIF 0195 as a result of which Gurupal Singh sustained injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 29 years and was earning Rs. 3,500 per month. The appellants filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 5,62,000. The respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck No. MIF 0195 admitted that the deceased on the date of accident, i.e., 10.1.96 was driving his truck and near Hindoli, truck No. MP 09-K 9351 came from opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the truck No. MIF 0195 as a result of which Gurupal Singh died. He had also admitted that he was paying Rs. 3,500 per month to the deceased. The respondent No. 2, insurer of truck No. MIF 0195 did not deny that the deceased was driving this truck and truck No. MP 09-K 9351 came from opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the truck No. MIF 0195. The respondent No. 2 averred that as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. MP 09-K 9351, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. Respondent No. 3, the owner of the truck No. MP 09-K 9351 remained absent and proceeded ex pane. The respondent No. 4, the insurer of the truck No. MP 09-K 9351 resisted the claim and averred that this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MIF 0195, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. On appreciation of evidence the learned Tribunal held that it was not proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. MP 09-K 9351 and dismissed the claim application. Hence, this appeal by the claimants.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Chawla, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that in truck No. MIF 0195 one passenger Shivsingh was travelling and he also died along with Gurupal Singh and his L.Rs. filed Claim Case No. 63 of 1997 in this very Tribunal and in that case the Tribunal held that this accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck No. MP 09-K 9351 and it dashed against the truck No. MIF 0195 and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,000. He, therefore, submitted that this case be remanded to the Tribunal so that he may examine Dalpatsingh, Sub- Inspector of Police, to prove the accident. Mr. Dandwate, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellants-claimants themselves closed their evidence and under such circumstances there is no reason to remand the case. On merits he supported the impugned award.