SUNITA JAIN Vs. KUNWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act')the claimants-appellants have called in question the defensibility of the award dated 24. 7. 1999 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sagar Camp Rehli (for short 'the Tribunal') in M. V. C. No. 22 of 1998.

(2.) THE facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this appeal is that the deceased, Sunil Kumar, was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. MP 15-D 2175 towards Gunjaura on 13. 4. 1998 for obtaining an order for light decoration. The said jeep was driven by the driver, respondent No. 1 herein. Near village udaipura, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, Sunil Kumar fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the hospital but despite availing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on the next day. Crime in respect of the offence punishable under sections 279, 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal code was instituted against the driver of the jeep. Because of the death in the vehicular accident the legal representatives of late Sunil Kumar initiated an action under section 166 of the Act for grant of compensation of Rs. 8,75,000 on various heads which included the amount expended on his treatment. It was contended before the tribunal that the deceased was a licensed driver, he was running a furniture shop and was also engaged in decoration work by running a tent house. It was pleaded that his monthly income was Rs. 5,000 and the entire family was dependent on him.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1, driver of the vehicle, filed his written statement contending, inter alia, that he was not the driver of the jeep and the same was driven by the deceased himself. On the date of accident the said Sunil Kumar was driving the vehicle in a drunken state and later on he had handed over the vehicle to be driven by someone else and he got stuck to the jeep by holding it in his hand, as a result of which when the jeep was being driven by another he fell down and sustained injuries. The owner of the vehicle took the plea that the deceased had borrowed the vehicle for his own work and he had a valid licence to drive. In essence, the stand of the respondent/owner was that the deceased himself was the driver of the jeep at the time of accident and the vehicle was under his control. He disputed that the respondent no. 1 is the driver and he had permitted the deceased to drive the vehicle. It was set forth that if the deceased was allowed to drive the vehicle that was his negligence and hence, the liability could not be fastened on him. Alternatively it was put forth that the vehicle was insured with United india Insurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, the insurer was liable to indemnify him.