NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. Vs. DHARAMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant New India Assurance Company alongwith owner of the offending vehicle have filed this appeal against the award dated 27th November, 1992, rendered by I Additional MACT Barwani in Claim Case No. 2 of 1986 thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. in favour of the claimant/respondents No. 1 and 2 and against appellants and respondent No. 3 for the death of Ajay Kumar, aged about 7 years, in the accident.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 12.9.85, Ajay Kumar, a boy of about 7 years of age met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. CPW 7317 resulting into the death of Ajay Kumar. On the date of alleged accident, appellant No. 2 Guljarilal was the registered owner of the vehicle and it was driven by respondent No. 3 Suratsingh and insured with appellant No. 1, The New India Assurance Company. Respondents No. 1 and 2 father and mother of the deceased child filed claim petition for award of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the tribunal. The Claim Petition was resisted on behalf of the appellants. On consideration, the tribunal allowed the petition and awarded compensation in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2 claimants and against appellants and respondent No. 3 as indicated above. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal against the impugned award of the tribunal. I have heard Shri Surjeet Singh learned counsel for the -appellants and Shri Rajpal learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None appeared for respondent No. 3. 1996 ACJ 414].

(3.) THE facts of the case of Govind Das (Supra) relied on by the appellants, are different and distinguishable than the facts of the case on hand. In the instant case, the Court declined to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal by the interim order passed under "no failt fault liability" in an appeal filed against the final award of the tribunal. Considering the facts of the case on hand and the law applicable, I do not find that any interference is necessary in the compensation as awarded by the tribunal. In the result, this appeal is devoid of any merits and substance and the same is accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs.