BANTO DEVI Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants who are aggrieved against the inadequate compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala ("Tribunal" for short) on account of the demise of Jagpal Singh in a motor vehicle accident on 19.2.1997.

(2.) JAGPAL Singh and one Sarwan Kumar were going from their village Moginand to village Ramgarh on a scooter, which had registration No. HR 03A 1410. Sarwan Kumar was driving the scooter and Jagpal Singh (deceased) was riding pillion. They reached near the bus stop of village Madanpur on the Panchkula - Barwala road at about 6.45 p.m. on 19.2.1997. At that time, the offending truck bearing No. HR 38 8257 being driven by Prem Singh (respondent No.1) in a rash, negligent and in a zig -zag manner, besides, at a very high speed came from the rear side of the scooter and hit the scooter from the back. The scooter was dragged to a substantial distance to the other side of the road. The scooter was being driven at a moderate speed on the left side of the road. Prem Singh (respondent No.1) had hit the scooter after going on the extreme left hand side of the road. As a result of the accident, the scooter was damaged extensively and both the riders sustained injuries. Jagpal Singh received fatal injuries and died at the spot. At the time of his demise, he was 23/24 years of age. According to the claimants/appellants, he was working as a truck driver for the last three years and was drawing salary of Rs.3000/ - per month, besides, daily allowance of Rs.50/ - from his employer Sher Singh and Udham Singh. The claimants, it is alleged, were dependent on the deceased. Therefore, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.10 lacs from the respondents. Respondent No.2 -Ramesh Chand was the owner of the truck and respondent No.3 - New India Assurance Company Limited, Ambala was the insurer of the truck.

(3.) PREM Singh (respondent No.1), the driver and Ramesh Chand (respondent No.2), the owner of the truck admitted the accident. However, it was pleaded that the person who was driving the scooter was at fault for the accident. It is alleged that Sarwan Kumar and Jagpal Singh (deceased) were under the influence of liquor. Sarwan Kumar was driving the scooter in a zig -zag manner. On seeing him driving the scooter in a zig -zag manner, Prem Singh (respondent No.1) stopped the truck in order to allow the scooter to pass through. However, Sarwan Kumar after hitting the wall of a small bridge struck the scooter against the truck which was in a stationary position on its extreme left hand side. As such the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the scooter driver and not of the truck being driven by Prem Singh (Respondent No.1). The New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent No.3) denied the accident. It took an alternate plea that in case the accident was proved, the same took place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooterist. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that Prem Singh (respondent No.1) was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck at the time of the accident. It was also held that the claim petition had been filed by the claimants in collusion with the driver and owner (respondents No.1 and 2) of the truck on the false and frivolous grounds to extract money from the Insurance Company.