RACHHPAL SINGH Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, I dispose of two F.A.Os. No. 2094 of 1994 titled Rachhpal Singh v. Bhagat Ram and No. 2095 of 1994 titled Rachhpal Singh v. Bhagat Ram, as both the appeals can be disposed of by one judgment. Both the appeals have arisen from the award dated 17.9.94 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala which dismissed both the claim petitions. One claim petition was filed by Rachhpal Singh, Harpinder Singh, minor sons of late Karamjit Singh and Charanjit Kaur, widow of late Karamjit, against Bhagat Ram, owner of the vehicle, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the second claim petition was filed by Rachhpal Singh, minor son of Karamjit Singh, deceased, through his mother Charanjit Kaur, who claimed compensation for the alleged injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident. It may be mentioned here that initially claim petitions were filed against the driver, owner and insurance company, but later on the name of driver Shiv Ram was deleted at the instance of the claimants.

(2.) The facts of the case can be described in the following manner: On 4.8.1991, Karamjit Singh deceased along with his wife Charanjit Kaur, his sons Rachhpal Singh and Harpinder Singh and his relatives Nichhattar Singh, Major Singh and their family members were travelling in Matador No. DL 5C-2410 from Delhi to Chandigarh. At about 7 p.m. the vehicle reached near village Saha on Haryana Highway and at that time it was being driven by Shiv Ram in a very rash and negligent manner and in the middle of the road. The driver applied brakes all of a sudden and brought the vehicle towards left side to let the other vehicles coming from the opposite direction to pass. However, he could not control his vehicle and dashed the same against a kikar tree standing on the left side of the road. In this manner the accident took place. Karamjit Singh deceased received multiple injuries on account of accident. Rachhpal Singh also sustained injuries in the shape of fracture of his left leg. Karamjit Singh, however, succumbed to injuries when he was being taken to PGI, Chandigarh. He was running STD in village Badheri, U.T. Chandigarh and was also a property dealer and used to earn Rs. 4,000 per month. The claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000 has been claimed as compensation for the death of Karamjit Singh and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was claimed by way of compensation on account of injuries sustained by Rachhpal Singh, who was aged about 11 years at the time of accident and was a student. Notice of the claim petitions was given to the respondents. These were contested by the owner of the vehicle, who alleged that the vehicle in question was never involved in the accident as alleged by the claimants. In fact, the said vehicle was borrowed from him by Ranjit Singh for Karamjit Singh deceased on 4.8.1991. Respondent No. 2 insurance company also filed separate written statements and its stand was that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. However, it was admitted that the vehicle in dispute is owned by Bhagat Ram, respondent No. 1 and the same was insured with it for the period from 25.5.1991 to 24.5.1992. It was also pleaded by the insurance company that the vehicle was being driven by its driver without a valid driving licence.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: