GOKUL PRASAD TRIPATHI Vs. VISHWANATH PRASAD VYASK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (In short 'the Act') for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rewa, in Claim case No. 93/08 vide award dated 26.2.2009 whereby, the claim of the appellants with respect of death of their son Sanjeev Tripathi, aged about 20 years in a vehicular accident has been awarded against the respondents No. 1 to 3 by saddling their joint and several liability to indemnify the sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition with some penal clause also in this regard if the amount is not paid within the prescribed period.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellants herein filed their claim before the Tribunal contending that on 19.1.2008 at about 2.45 in the noon, his son Sanjeev Tripathi aged about 20 years was going on his motorcycle to look after his business at Semaria bus stand, Rewa. On the way, he was dashed by the offending vehicle bearing registration no. MKA-3258 driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner resultantly, he fell down and sustained the injury and died on the spot On receiving such information, the criminal offence was registered against the respondent No. 1 at Police Station Semariya. After holding investigation, he was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 304 of I.P.C. Subsequently after obtaining the requisites papers from such criminal case, the appellants being parents and dependents of the deceased filed their claim contending that the deceased being an educated person, was working as Manager in the Office of Goutam Travels, Rewa Branch at Semariya, from where he was getting the salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. As per further averments, the offending vehicle was duly registered in the name of respondent no.2 while, the same was insured in the name of respondent no.5. With these pleadings, the appellants have filed their claim for the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also for interest on it.

(3.) In reply of respondent No. 1 & 2, by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the alleged accident was not the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of the alleged vehicle by the respondent no. 1. The alleged accident was the consequence of the driving of some other vehicle. Subsequently, by fabricating the false story, the allegation were made against the respondent no. 1. In such premises, the prayer for dismissal of the claim petition is made and in alternative it is stated that on holding any liability against them, then the same be saddled against the respondent No.3/Insurer, as the offending bus was duly insured with it.