BINDU Vs. CONTINENTAL VALVES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimants' appeal and has been directed against the award dated 24.4.1990 passed by the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, who allowed the claim petition of the appellants and awarded the sum of Rs. 1,92,000 as compensation besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation on account of the death of Satish Kumar Jain, father of the claimants Bindu and Rinki, minor daughters, Sid-harath a son and widow Balesh against the owner, driver and National Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim petition was filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It may be mentioned here that vide the impugned award, the two claim petitions were disposed of as the same had arisen from the same accident but for my purpose, I am concerned with the Claim Petition No. 87 of 1989 titled Bindu and others v. Continental Valves Ltd. and others.

(2.) In this claim petition, death of Satish Kumar Jain took place on 13.5.1989 in a vehicular road accident. It is alleged by the claimants that the deceased was a young man of 30 years. He was running a cloth shop in the name and style of Rattan Lal Gian Chand. He was the sole proprietor of the shop which was within the municipal limits of Farrukh Nagar. The deceased was earning Rs. 3,000 p.m. and having a bright career. The claimants were dependants on the income of the deceased. It is alleged by the claimants that on 13.5.1989, the date of accident at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased along with one Ved Parkash was going from Farrukh Nagar to Delhi on a scooter bearing No. BDZ 7244. Ved Parkash was sitting on pillion seat of the scooter, while the deceased was driving the scooter. When they reached Gurgaon at about 9.15 p.m. all of a sudden, a Maruti van bearing No. DDB 5654 came from the side of Delhi at a very high speed. The driver of the Maruti van was driving it rashly and negligently. It hit the scooter, as a result of which the accident took place. The deceased as well as Ved Parkash suffered multiple injuries. Satish Kumar later on succumbed to his injuries. He was removed to the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, but was declared dead. According to the claimants, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 Sham Lal who was the driver of the offending vehicle and after causing the death, he slipped away from the place of incident but his vehicle number was noted by the persons present there. The injured Ved Parkash and his relatives informed the police and the D.C., Gurgaon, several times but the respondents being influential persons were not arrested by the police. With these allegations, the claimants claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000.

(3.) Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. Respondent No. 1 admitted that it was the registered owner of the vehicle and the same was being driven by Sham Lal, the respondent No. 2, driver of the company. According to this witness, the van was generally used for carrying the Manager of the factory from his residence at Urban Estate, Gurgaon and back after office nours of the factory. The alleged accident had not at all occurred with this van and the driver was not deputed to Delhi on the date of the accident. Thus, it is not liable to pay any compensation. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in case, it is established that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, then National Insurance Co. Ltd. was liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No. 2, i.e., the driver of the van also filed a separate written statement and he adopted the line of action of respondent No. 1.