LILI BORA Vs. NISHI HAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short, 'the MV Act. 1988') against the award, dated 28-9-1982. passed, in MAC Case No, 2/93, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang. determining a sum of Rs. 52,000/- as compensation for the death of the claimant's 12/13 year old daughter.

(2.) The case of the claimant may, in brief, be described thus : While the claimant's daughter, Rupanjali Bora, was proceeding, on 7-12-1992, to her school, the offending vehicle, namely, Ambassador car, bearing registration No. WMD 3689, ran over Rupanjali at National Highway No. 52 at Bheberghat, Mongoldoi town. Rupanjali sustained grievous injuries as a result of the said accident and succumbed to her injuries at the hospital.

(3.) The claimant, then, made an application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, and sought for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. A claim proceeding was accordingly initiated against one Nishirani Hazarika, who is respondent No. 1 herein, as owner of the vehicle. However, during the progress of the claim proceeding, when it came to light that M/s Jindal and Co. of Calcutta was the registered owner of the vehicle, M/s Jindal and Co, was also served with notice. While M/s Jindal and Co. did not contest the proceeding, the respondent No. 1 herein contested the proceeding by filing written statement, her case being, in brief, thus : The respondent No. 1 was not the owner of the vehicle and was, therefore, not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The learned tribunal determined a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as the total compensation and held M/s Jindal and Co., as the owner of the vehicle, liable to pay compensation to the claimant, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of making of the claim application. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, so awarded, and also contending, inter alia, that the liability to pay compensation ought to have been imposed on Smt. Nishi Rani Hazarika (i.e. respondent No. 1 herein), the claimant has preferred the present appeal.