RAJ KUMARI Vs. MUNNALAL VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, in short "the Act" being aggrieved by the award dated 12-2-1998 passed by the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACC No. 28/96, whereby exonerating the respondent No. 3-Insurer the claim of the appellants regarding vehicular death of Munna Lai Sahu, the husband of appellant No. 1 while the father of remaining appellants, in the alleged accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs. 3,38,400/-against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by saddling their joint and several liability to pay such sum.

(2.) The fact giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 10-1-1995 at about 6.30 in the evening the aforesaid Munna Lai Sahu accompanied with his wife, the appellant No. 1 and two children while riding his scooter bearing Registration No. MP-15-C-3554 was returning to his home at Sagar from Rahatgarh. On the way his scooter was dashed by a jeep bearing Registration No. M.P. 16-A-0271 driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner. Resultantly, Munna Lal Sahu and other appellants accompanied with him had fallen down on the road, Munna Lai Sahu sustained various injuries, became unconscious and later succumbed to such injuries while appellants accompanied with him sustained the injuries on their different parts of the persons. The aforesaid jeep was registered in the name of respondent No. 2, while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. On receiving the information of such accident a crime was registered against the respondent No. 1 at P.S. Rahatgarh for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. After holding investigation, the respondent No. 1 was charge sheeted for the same. As per further averments of the claim petition the appellants being dependents on the deceased due to his untimely death in the age of 38 years, have been deprived from their dependency. Besides this, appellant No. 1 is also deprived from the company of her husband for the remaining life. It is also stated that the deceased was working as telephone operator in the Telecommunication Department on the salary of Rs. 3600/- per month and in j such premises, the appellants preferred their claim for the sum of Rs. 4,64,865/-along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition.

(3.) In reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the averments regarding rash and j negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 is denied and it is stated that the rider of aforesaid scooter deceased Munna Lai Sahu was riding his scooter in rash, negligent and jig jag manner and due to that the alleged accident was happened. In such premises, the respondent No. 1 could not be held to be responsible for the alleged accident. As per further averments, the respondent No. 1 was reached to the place of incident subsequent to accident and in order to help the victims of such accident took them to the hospital in his jeep. But later he was implicated in the criminal case under the wrong premises. With these averments, the prayer for dismissal of the claim is made. In alternative it is stated that on holding any liability of the impugned claim against them, the same be saddled against the respondent No. 3 - Insurer as the offending jeep was duly insured with it. It is also stated that the alleged jeep was driven by the respondent No. 1 having the effective driving licence of the same.