HEMU BAI Vs. SATISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeal being M.A. No. 2011 of 2004, because both these appeals arise out of same impugned award and secondly, they arise out of same accident.

(2.) This is an appeal filed by the claimants who are legal representatives of the deceased under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 29.4.2004, passed by learned First Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas in Claim Case No. 135 of 2003. By impugned award, Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,95,000 with interest to claimants for the death of one Devi Singh, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on a lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out in the compensation awarded and if so, to what extent? So far as other connected appeal being M.A. No. 2011 of 2004 is concerned, it is filed by the insurance company wherein the question involved is: whether vehicle in question which was insured with the insurance company was rightly held involved in the accident?

(3.) It is the case of the claimants that on 17.11.2003, Devi Singh, aged around 30 years was going on his bicycle at Maxi-Dewas Road at around 6 p.m. when one Maruti van white in colour came from behind and dashed Devi Singh. It is averred that impact of the dash was so violent that Devi Singh fell down and died on the spot. It is this incident that gave rise to filing of claim petition by his (Devi Singh) legal representatives out of which this appeal arises under provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for his death. The case was contested by respondent by filing separate written statement. In substance, according to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (non-appellant Nos. 1 and 2), it was deceased who was responsible for causing the accident because he was negligent in riding his bicycle. It was contended that non-applicant No. 2 was driving his vehicle very cautiously and carefully. Claimants alone adduced evidence whereas none of the non-applicants entered in witness-box, nor did they lead any evidence in rebuttal. The Tribunal by impugned award, partly allowed the claim petition and as stated supra, awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 2,95,000 to the claimants by passing an award against all the respondents/non-applicants. It was held that the accident in question occurred on account of sole negligence of non-applicant No. 2, i.e., driver of offending vehicle and hence, he along with insurer and insured, i.e., owner and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident. It is against this award, both claimants and insurance company have filed these two appeals.