LAWS(P&H)-2022-10-84

SUMITRA DEVI Vs. HAWA SINGH

Decided On October 10, 2022
SUMITRA DEVI Appellant
V/S
HAWA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for deleting the name of Appellant No. 4 Bhani from the array of parties as she had died on 2/3/2019.

(2.) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the name of Appellant No. 4 Bhani is deleted from the array of parties. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

(3.) The challenge laid in this appeal is to the award dtd. 4/8/2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company i.e. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Was absolved of its liability as well as for enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that on 2/11/2014, Jagbir Singh (since deceased) along with others, were going from their village to Panipat via Gohana-Panipat road in a Jeep, which was being driven by its driver at a moderate speed. At about 10.00 AM, when they reached near village Kait, the offending canter bearing registration number HR-45A-7641 came from Gohana side and the driver of the said canter was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed and the driver of the said canter directly hit his canter against their Jeep, as a result of which, all the occupants of the Jeep sustained injuries. Jagbir sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his person and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Jagbir and other injured persons were shifted to Govt. Medical College Hospital, Khanpur. It is further stated that the driver of the offending canter bearing registration number HR-45A-7641 fled away from the spot while leaving the offending canter on the spot. On the statement of one Jasmer son\ of Rajbir, a case FIR no.220, dtd. 2/11/2014, under Ss. 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC, was registered at police station Israna. Wife, sons and mother of deceased Jagir Singh filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, which was partly allowed, vide impugned award. The operative part of the award reads as under: