SARJO DEVI Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants, thereby, assailing the judgment dtd. 9/10/1998 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.

(2.) The essential facts to be noticed are as herein given:- That, on 14/12/1993, at about 11.30 p.m., Balwan Singh was returning to Jind from Narnaund, while on scooter, after completion of his private work. When he reached near village Gulkani, a Trax/Jeep bearing registration No.DL-5C-5884, which was being driven by respondent No.1- Shamsher Singh, came from his back side i.e. from Hansi side, at a very high speed. It was being driven, rashly and negligently and it hit the scooter, as a result whereof, Balwan Singh fell down and suffered serious multiple injuries, on his head. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Jind, where he was declared dead. The accident was witnessed by one Ram Kumar. Krishan Kumar, registered owner of the Trax/Jeep bearing registration No.DL-5C5884 and the National Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle, were also impleaded as respondents No.1 and 2, respectively, but however, at later stage, in pursuance of disclosure made about Krishan Kumar to have sold the vehicle in question to Sehdev Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh, said Sehdev Singh was arrayed as respondent No.2-A.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent No.1-Shamsher Singh made appearance and filed reply, wherein, he though admitted about the accident to have taken place, but however, he asserted the same to have taken place due to fault of Balwan Singh deceased, as the latter was driving his scooter, in a rash and negligent manner. However, respondent No.2- Krishan Kumar had asserted in reply, about himself to be not owner of Trax/Jeep in question, on the date of accident i.e. 14/12/1993, as he had already sold the said vehicle to one Sehdev Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh. Further, Sehdev Singh, the subsequent purchaser was impleaded as respondent No.2-A on 18/5/1992 and he pleaded that the petition should be dismissed qua him. Thereafter, he was proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No.3-insurance company, in fact contested the claim petition and filed an application under Sec. 170(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles act, for taking over the defence of the claim, in the name of the insured and the same was allowed. In fact, the plea taken by the insurance company is about no accident to have taken place on 14/12/1993, with Trax/Jeep bearing registration No.DL-5C-5884. In fact, it took the plea about claimants to have colluded with driver and owner of the vehicle in question, in order to get compensation.