GURDIAL CHAND SETHI Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation arising out of a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) ON September 16, 1983, one Krishna Rani alongwith her son Neetu and her mother were on their way to home and when reached in front of house of one Ajit Singh, truck No. HRB 8951 driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2, hit them. Neetu and the mother of Krishna Rani died on the spot. Krishna Rani was taken to a Hospital in Hissar but she also succumbed to her injuries on the following day.

(3.) GURDIAL Chand Sethi and his two minor children, namely, Neelam and Niraj, the appellants herein filed a claim petition claiming compensation, to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the death of Krishna Rani and Neetu, a minor child aged 11 years. Krishna Rani was the wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of applicants 2 and 3 whereas Neetu the other deceased was the son of appellant No. 1 and brother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3. It was alleged in the claim petition that appellant No. 1 spent Rs. 3000/- on the purchase of medicines and Rs. 400/- on account of transportation charges of the dead body in a jeep from House to Ratia. He also spent Rs. 275/- on the carriage of dead body of Neetu to Fatehgarh for post mortem examination and back besides Rs. 5000/- more on the funeral and last rites of the deceased. It was also alleged that after the death of Krishna Rani, the mother of the minor children, the appellants had to employ a maid servant to look after the children and for cooking meals on a monthly pay of Rs. 250/ -. In this way, the appellants claimed Rs. ,1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the deaths of Krishna Rani and Neetu respectively, besides interest thereon at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the petition. Though the claim petition was opposed by all the respondents, yet respondent No. 1 admitted that he was in the employment of respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck in question. He also admitted that he was driving the truck at the relevant time. The defence taken by respondent No. 1 was that the deceased merged on the road side all of a sudden in order to cross the road and he tried to save him. The ladies also rushed to catch hold of Neetu at once and were hit by the truck. Respondent No. 1, however, denied that he was rash and negligent in driving the truck.