PUSHPA Vs. RAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the award dated 17. 11. 2004 passed by the Second additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sehore in M. C. C. No. 40 of 2004, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act for compensation on account of death of Shivram caused in the motor accident has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts of the case in short are that on 14. 12. 2000 at about 9 p. m. Shivram was pillion rider on scooter No. MP 04-G 4616 which was being driven by Rajkumar. They were going from Ashta to Sehore. One trolley filled with sugarcane and tractor No. MBF 2760 was parked on the road near the well of Jagdish Jat without any parking lights on. The scooter dashed with it. They became seriously injured and Shivram was carried to Hamidia Hospital where he succumbed to injuries on 16. 12. 2000 sustained by him in the motor accident. Report was lodged by Rajkumar in Police Station, mandi, wherein Crime No. 349 of 2000 was registered under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against Rai singh, respondent No. 1. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 were the registered owners and respondent No. 4 was in possession of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It was also averred that Shivram was working as a peon in Laxmibai Girls Middle School, Sehore and was getting salary of Rs. 1,800. He was also doing the work of tailoring and earning Rs. 200 per day. The claimants suffered a great loss on account of death of Shivram caused in the motor accident, therefore, they filed the claim petition claiming the compensation of Rs. 80,50,000 to be awarded for the death of Shivram caused in the motor accident.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the written statement denying the claim and liability mainly contending that he was not the driver of tractor-trolley on the date of accident. However, he has contended that he was having valid driving licence. Further he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation.