PARMINDER MALIK Vs. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimants' appeal and has been directed against the award dated 8.9.1993, passed by the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, who, dismissed the claim petition of the appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, vide which, the claimants had made a prayer that a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 may be awarded to them by way of compensation on account of the death of Jasbir Singh, son of Sewak Singh.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Parminder Malik, widow of Jasbir Singh, minor daughters Jasmin, aged 15 years and Amita, aged 12 years, filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaspal Singh and Tara Singh, driver and owner of the offending car No. CH 01-D 0967 and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000 by way of compensation and it was averred by the claimants that Jasbir Singh was doing a transport business and he was earning Rs. 13,000 per month. On 1.11.1991, at about 10 p.m. Jasbir Singh was coming on his scooter bearing registration No. CHQ 9744 at Chandigarh-Ambala Road and when he reached near the workshop of P.R.T.C. in Industrial Area, Phase II, the offending car No. CH 01-D 0967 came from behind at a fast speed. The car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the car did not blow the horn and hit the car against the scooter from behind and caused injuries to Jasbir Singh. After hitting the scooter, the car hit the cyclist who was going ahead of scooter. Jasbir Singh sustained injuries. He was removed to the hospital in a police vehicle and he died on 3.11.1991. The claimants alleged that this accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the car.

(3.) Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex pane. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement. They admitted the accident in question and it was pleaded that the accident took place when the car was likely to overtake the scooterist all of a sudden. Scooterist lost balance and came in front of the car and suffered injuries. The respondents denied that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car.