MOHINDER KAUR Vs. HASMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dtd. 27/7/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 stating therein that their 19 years old son Hardeep Singh was going on his motor cycle bearing No.PB-1-AT-0437 towards Y.P.S. Chowk, Patiala. He was followed by Ranjit Singh s/o Dar Amarjit Singh Cheema. When Hardeep Singh reached near the gate of Military Headquarter, Patiala then the offending Jeep bearing No.PB-57-8112 came from Y.P.S. Chowk, Patiala driving at a very high speed and on the wrong side of the road, and hit the motor-cycle of the deceased, Hardeep Singh. It was stated that the deceased was going on his motorcycle at a normal speed. The offending Jeep crushed the head of Hardeep Singh and he succumbed to his injuries at the spot. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was a young man of 19 years of age and a second year student of MBBS studying in Rajindra Medical College and Hospital, Patiala. It was also averred that he was doing tuition job work and was earning Rs.8000.00 to Rs.10000.00 per month from tuition. It was further stated that the deceased was a topper and stood 3rd in PMT test in Ludhiana City. He was a very good football as well as cricket player. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos.1 and 2 who filed their joint written statement denying that Hardeep Singh was 19 years of age and further that he was self-employed and was earning Rs.8000.00 to Rs.10000.00 per month. It was further averred that respondent No.1 had falsely been implicated in the case. Respondent No.3, alongwith the usual pleas, raised the plea that respondent No.1 was not driving the offending Jeep in the course of his employment with the owner and insured and as such the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. Further, it was stated that the offending Jeep was not having a valid registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of the alleged accident.

(3.) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :