RUPRANI Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the sum awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sagar in Claim Case No. 40/2009 vide award dated 31-8-2009 whereby the claim of the appellants with respect of the death of Pappu alias Parmanand, aged 33 years, son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 while brother of other appellants, in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded by saddling the joint and several liability against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 for the sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- along with the interest on it at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i. e. 23-1-2009.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 9-12-2008 at about 10 O'Clock in the night, the above mentioned deceased Pappu alias Parmanand was returning to his home from Makronia square, on the way, the respondent No. 1 while driving the truck bearing registration No. MP 19-HA/0874 in rash and negligent manner came from the backside and dashed to said Pappu alias Parmanand. Resultantly, he fell down, on which the truck ran over on him, consequently, he died on the spot. On receiving the information, a criminal offence was registered against the respondent No. 1 at Padmakar Police Out Post of Police Station Cantt, Sagar for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC. After holding the investigation, the respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for such offence. As per further averments, the offending truck was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. It is also stated that all the appellants were dependent on the deceased. Due to his untimely death, the appellants have been deprived from their means of the livelihood and also from dependency. It is also stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as he was doing the work of centering in the houses under construction. With these submissions, the appellants have preferred their claim for the sum of compensation Rs. 37,50,000/- along with the interest on it at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum.

(3.) In the reply of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that at the time of the accident, aforesaid offending vehicle was driven by the respondent No. 1 with duly and effective driving licence and the same was duly insured with the respondent No. 3. In any case, on holding any liability against these respondents regarding the alleged claim then the same be saddled against the respondent No. 3, insurer as the vehicle was duly insured with it. With these submissions, prayer for dismissal of the claim is made.