MUNNI BAI Vs. RAMNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-claimants have come forward with this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in short 'the Act" for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Murena in Claim Case No. 05/2005, vide award dated 31-1-2006, whereby their claim regarding vehicular death of Shri Suresh Kumar Baghel, aged about 37 years in the alleged motor accident has been awarded against the respondents by saddling their joint and several liability to indemnify the sum of Rs. 6,52.000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., 12-5-2005.

(2.) The appellants herein filed their claim contending that Suresh Kumar liaghel. aged 37 years, the husband of the appellant No. 1, while the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6 and the son of appellant No. 7 and son-in-law of appellant Nos. 8 and 9, had died in the alleged vehicular accident happened on dated 10-2-2004, which was the cause and consequence of the rash and negligent driving of the Marshal Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 06/B-1527, by respondent No. 1. Such offending vehicle was duly registered in the name of respondent No. 2, while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. As per further averments the deceased being Advocate was practicing in the different Courts of Murena District and out of such profession he was earning near about Rs. 16,000/- per month. Due to his untimely death in the alleged accident, the appellants have been deprived from their dependency and in such premises the impugned claim was filed for the compensation of sum of Rs. 91,90,000/-alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. Alongwith the claim petition the certified copy of some papers of the criminal case registered with respect of the alleged accident and the post-mortem report of the deceased are also placed on record.

(3.) On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after giving appearance, they have filed their reply in which the factum of the alleged accident was denied. In addition it is stated that the alleged accident was cause and consequence of negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased, hence the liability of the impugned claim could not be saddled against them. In any case, the impugned case should be considered to be the case of contributory negligence. It is further stated that on holding any liability against these respondents, the same be saddled against respondent No. 3-Insurer as the offending vehicle was duly insured with it.