RAM NATH MEHTA Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a claimants' appeal and has been directed against the award dated 2.12.1991 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short the Tribunal), vide which the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment in favour of the petitioners-appellants and against respondents 4 to 7 and the amount of compensation was to be paid jointly and severally. The claim petition was however dismissed against claimants 1 to 3.

(2.) THE claim petition was filed by Ram Nath Mehta, the husband of the deceased, Pankaj Mehta and Master Neeraj Mehta, the sons of the deceased and they claimed compensation vis-a-vis Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta who died on 13.11.1989 on account of the injuries received in a vehicle accident which took place on 7.11.1989.

(3.) THE claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the motor cycle filed a joint written statement and they took the stand that Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta while returning from school was overtaking the tractor trailor but while doing so, she became nervous and fell on account of her unbalance and was run over by the tractor- trailor. Respondent No. 1 was coming from the opposite side. He stopped his vehicle on seeing Smt. Subash Kumari Mehta lying on the road as she was known to him being a wife of his friend. Respondent No. 1 totally denied his involvement in the accident. They also pleaded that Smt. Subhash Kumari Mehta was taken to Civil Hospital in an auto rickshaw by Mohinder Singh-respondent No. 1 in the company of one Smt. Surjit Kaur and later on gave information of the accident to Mr. Mehta, the husband of the deceased at his house. It was on his information that Mr. Ram Nath Mehta accompanied by his son Pankaj Mehta rushed to Civil Hospital, Ambala City. Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that the petitioners have coined a cock and bull story and the claim petition is not maintainable against the answering respondents 1 to 3.