SHEIKH SYED Vs. KIRAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant/the owner-cumdriver of the offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (In short "the Act") being aggrieved by the award dated 13.5.1997 passed in Claim Case No.7/91, by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Harda, by which exonerating the respondent No.6, Insurer the claim of respondent No.1 to 5 regarding vehicular death of Kamal Kishore has been awarded against the appellant for the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest @ 12% of p. a. if the awarded sum is not paid within two months.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 2.3.1987, Kamal Kishor the husband of respondent No.1 while father of respondent No.2 to 5 was going on bicycle from Seoni Malwa towards village Vanapura at the same time the appellant while driving his truck bearing registration No.CPO-7972 in rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and dashed him, resultantly, he sustained injuries and became unconscious. He was taken to hospital at Hoshangabad and thereafter Bhopal where during the course of treatment on 4.3.1987 he succumbed to such injuries. The FIR of the accident was registered on the same day at P. S. Seoni Malwa. After holding investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted for such offence. As per further averment, Kamal Kishore being 36 years of the age was earning Rs.2,000/-p.m. from the milk business, besides this he was also looking after the agriculture field. Due to his untimely death respondent No.1 to 5 have been deprived from his love and affection while respondent No.1 has lost her matrimonial company. They also lost their right of dependency. The aforesaid truck was registered in the name of the appellant and the same was insured with respondent No.6. With these averments the claim was preferred for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

(3.) In reply of the appellant, it is denied that he is the sole owner of the truck, the same was hypothecated by the Central Bank of India, hence such bank is also the owner of it. The same was neither driven in rash and negligent manner nor the alleged accident was the cause and consequence of any negligence of the appellant. The same was happened because of the negligence of the deceased.