NAVLEEA KAUSHAL Vs. CHANDER MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 6th August, 1972, an accident took place on a crossing in Sector 19 near Gurdwara, in which a scooter, Motor Cycle and Car were involved. Kapil Dev Kaushal who was on the scooter (whether he was driving the scooter or was on the pillion is a point to be decided in this appeal), fell down and became unconscious. When he was being removed to P.G.I., he died on the way. His parents filed an application for grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The owners, drivers and Insurance Company of the three vehicles were impleaded besides impleading Chander Mohan, who was also on the scooter. The Tribunal found that the scooter was being driven by Kapil Dev Kaushal and the accident took place due to his negligence. During the trial, the claimants exonerated the drivers of the Car and Motor Cycle and led evidence to show that Chander Mohan was driving the scooter and due to his negligence Kapil Dev Kaushal sustained injuries and on this basis claimed damages from the owner of the scooter, namely, Shri Amar Inder Jit Singh. Since it was found that Kapil Dev Kaushal who did not have the licence and was below 18 years was negligent the claim petition was dismissed. This is appeal by the claimants.

(2.) IF the claim had been made against the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the Car or Motor Cycle, the matter could have been gone into. Since even before me no argument was raised, rather it was candidly stated by Shri Vijay Tiwari Advocate that no argument is being raised against the owner drivers and the Insurance Company of the Car and Motor Cycle therefore, the matter about their being negligent and liable to pay compensation, does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the matter stands confined to one simple fact as to whether the scooter was being driven by Kapil Dev Kaushal or by Chander Mohan and whether for their negligence the owner of the scooter could be held liable for payment of compensation.

(3.) IT was argued before me that the Tribunal was in error in concluding from the following that Kapil Dev Kaushal was driving the scooter: