LAWS(P&H)-2010-4-470

MURTI DEVI AND ORS Vs. RAJESH AND ORS

Decided On April 29, 2010
Murti Devi And Ors Appellant
V/S
RAJESH AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the Award dated 07-06-1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the grant of compensation on account of death of Layak Ram alias Lekh Raj in an accident was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.3.1994, Layak Raj alias Lekh Raj along with Balbir Singh was coming to their house at Chawla Colony from Sharda Colony on foot. When they reached near Sabjimandi Chowk, a Maruti Van bearing registration No. DL-1-CB-0164 being driven by Rajesh (respondent No. 1) in a rash and negligent manner came from Palwal side and struck against Layak Ram. As a result of the impact, Layak Ram suffered injuries on his neck, head and face. After the accident, the Maruti van was stopped for a while and thereafter the Driver fled it away towards Delhi. Layak Ram was removed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, (A.I.I.M.S) where he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of statement of Balbir Singh, an F.I.R (Exhibit P.1) was registered in this case.

(3.) Separate written statements were filed by the respondents i.e Rajesh (respondent No. 1), driver of offending Maruti Van, owner of the offending Maruti van (respondent No. 2) and the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No. 3). Respondent No. 1,in his written statement, denied the allegations contained in the petition. Respondent No. 2 pleaded that no accident as alleged by the claimants took place on 27.3.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The insurance Company (respondent No. 3), in its written statement denied the factum of accident. It was also pleaded by the Insurance Company that the present claim petition had been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in order to claim compensation. Other allegations contained in the claim petition were denied.