RAMESH KUMARI Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimants' appeal and has been directed against the award dated 27.3.1995 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, which awarded a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 in favour of the claimants besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 26.7.1991, i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition, till recovery, by respondent No. 3 and costs which were assessed at Rs. 500. It was further ordered by the Tribunal that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with proportionate interest would be paid to the widow namely Ramesh Kumari and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,00,000 along with interest shall be distributed amongst the three daughters namely Sanjna, Pankaj and Ruchi.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that Sanjna was minor at the time of filing of the claim petition but now she has been married. Be that as it may, the facts of the case are that Ramesh Kumari (widow), Sanjna, Pankaj and Ruchi (daughters of deceased Madan Lal) filed claim petition against Krishan Kumar (driver of the offending car), Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sangrur (owner) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer) and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000 on account of death of Madan Lal besides Rs. 10,000 as compensation for damage to the motor cycle. The case pleaded by the claimants is that in the accident which took place on 13.5.1991 at about 5.45 a.m. on the road between Sectors 43 and 44, Chandigarh the deceased was knocked down from his motor cycle by the rash and negligent driving of offending car No. PCC-201 by respondent driver Krishan Kumar. The said car was owned by respondent No. 2. It is also pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 7,000 per month on average and they were dependent upon him.

(3.) The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 took the stand that no accident took place with the car in question. In the alternative, he pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased who did not abide by the traffic rules and came at once in the crossing. Respondent No. 2 did not deny the accident specifically but pleaded that no accident was caused by respondent No. 1. The respondent insurance company denied its liability and pleaded that at the maximum its liability is to the extent of Rs. 6,000 only.