MEHRUNISHA Vs. YOUDHBIR SINGH BHADANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the award of dismissal of the petition for compensation. The claimants were parents and the deceased was their 19 year old son. He was said to be employed in M/s Super Auto (India) Ltd. at Faridabad earning Rs.2500/ -per month and making a further income of Rs.600/ -by some part -time work. The petition was dismissed on the ground that apart from the evidence of the claimants and the production of FIR through the Police Constable attached to the police station in which the case had been registered, there was no proof of the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal made a reference to the fact that the FIR did not contain reference to the name of the driver or registration number of the vehicle and FAO No. 126 of 1999 -2 proceeded to dismiss the petition. I will find this to be of no major significance in case where there had been an identity of the car through the manufacturer and the colour and the driver himself did not come to the Court to deny the accident.

(2.) I find from the written statement filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 that there was no denial of the accident at all. On the other hand, the contention was that the accident had taken place only on account of the negligence of the deceased. The insurance company denied the accident and I will not allow this contention to be urged in the absence of any plea by the insurer that there had been collusion between the claimants and the driver and owner and hence the alleged non -denial could not have been taken as proof of involvement of the insured's vehicle. If Respondents No. 1 and 2 did not deny the accident, then the fact that he died in a motor accident ought to be taken only as resultant to the negligent driving of a driver of Maruti car said to have been involved in the accident. I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the insured's vehicle was responsible for the accident.

(3.) 60% of the amount of compensation shall be payable to the mother and the remaining 40% shall be distributed amongst the legal representatives of the deceased father, who was one of the claimants and had died during the pendency of the appeal.