RAMESHWAR & ORS Vs. MOTIRAM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (in short "the Act") being aggrieved by the award dated 19.9.2001, passed by 7th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 323/1997 consolidated with Claim Case No. 386/97, whereby their claim regarding vehicular death of Laxmi Narayan, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 30.5.1997 between 8.00 and 8.30 p.m. Laxmi Narayan, the husband of respondent No. 4, son of appellant Nos. l and 2 while brother of appellant Nos. 3 to 5, being fruits vendor was returning to his home with his hand cart, on the way respondent No. l while driving the offending vehicle (Matador) bearing registration number M.P.09-S/2377 in rash and negligent manner dashed him. resultantly he sustained injuries. He was taken to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, in the course of treatment but he succumbed to such injuries on 31.5.1997. On receiving the information Merg intimation and FIR was registered at Police Station Aerodrome, in which the name of driver and number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned but in the investigation it was revealed that the respondent No. l while driving the aforesaid vehicle in rash and negligent manner caused the alleged accident. On completion of investigation respondent No. l was charge sheeted for the same. As per further averments the deceased being fruit vendor was earning Rs. 4,000 p.m. The appellants and respondent No. 4 were dependent on him. The deceased was aged about 25 years on the date of the incident. Initially the appellants and respondent No. 4 filed their separate claims bearing Case No. 386/97 and No. 323/97 respectively but in pendency of the same respondent No. 4 was inserted as claimant in the Claim Case No. 386/97. As per further averments the offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with respondent No. 3. With the aforesaid averments the appellants and respondent No. 4 filed their claim for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 with a prayer to saddle its liability against respondent Nos. l to 3 jointly and severally.

(3.) In joint reply of respondent Nos. l and 2 the averments of the claim petition are denied. As per further averments, on the alleged date no accident took place by their vehicle, as such the aforesaid day being holiday their vehicle was stationed at their factory situated at Gomathgiri, Indore and was not plied. It is further stated that at first instance the FIR was registered against unknown vehicle but subsequently after four months on false averments the respondent No. 1 was implicated in the criminal case and their vehicle was seized. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the claim was made.