SUNHERI DEVI Vs. SEWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants have filed this appeal against award dated 17.8.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the claim petition of the appellants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was dismissed with costs. As per the case put up by the claimants before the Tribunal, Tulsi Dutt alongwith Balram Singh was travelling on 1.1.2001 on motor cycle No. PB-11-Q-4916 being driven by Tulsi Dutt (deceased). They were going from village Kauli to village Ablowal. Deep Kumar and Vijay Kumar were also going on their scooter No. PB-11-G-2102 being driven by Deep Kumar. At about 9.30 p.m. they crossed the bridge near Dharheri towards Bahadurgarh on Rajpura-Patiala Road. The motor cycle of Tulsi Dutt skid as he applied brakes to avoid its hitting the scooter while over-taking scooter going ahead his motor cycle. As a result of which Tulsi Dutt and Balram Singh were fell down and they sustained injuries. It was further stated that Tulsi Dutt died due to the accident. DDR No. 4 dated 2.1.2001 was got recorded. Deceased Tulsi Dutt had not consumed liquor as stated in the said DDR. Deceased was teetotaler and follower of Radha Swami.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 denied the claim whereas Insurance Company contested the claim and it took all the preliminary objections. Insurance Company took the plea that deceased himself was driving the motor cycle and he cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. Claimants have fabricated the whole story. In DDR No. 4 dated 2.1.2001 lodged with the police, it has been mentioned that deceased had consumed liquor at a party and were going back. The DDR was recorded on the statement of Balram Singh, who had stated that they had attended the parry on account of birth of son of his brother-in-law at village Kauli and there in the party they alongwith Tulsi Dutt had consumed liquor.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: