RAJ RANI Vs. SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I will dispose of two connected appeals bearing FAO Nos.884 and 2842 of 2001 arising out of the same accident.

(2.) Facts of the case are that on 3.6.1998 at about 12.30 p.m. Dr.S.K.Chugh accompanied by his mother Bhagwanti, maternal uncle Naresh Kumar Dhingra and Raj Rani wife of Naresh Kumar Dhingra were going to Hansi riding Maruti Car bearing registration No.HR-20D-6226. Naresh Kumar Dhingra was driving the car. When they reached at a distance of 6 kms from Hisar towards Hansi, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.HR-20D-7512 came from Hansi side which was being driven by Satish Kumar respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and at a very high speed. The Tata Sumo rammed into the Maruti Car being driven by Naresh Kumar Dhingra. As a result of the accident, Dr.S.K.Chugh, Raj Rani, Naresh Kumar Dhingra and Bhagwanti received multiple injuries. They were immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital Hansi on 3.6.1998. FIR No.139 was registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi on the statement made by Naresh Kumar Dhingra. Dr.S.K.Chugh succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of Dr.S.K.Chugh and other occupants have filed separate claim petitions. Claimants Raj Rani filed MACT Case No.53 dated 7.9.98 and Naresh Kumar Dhingra filed MACT No.54 dated 7.9.98 u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) Qua Raj Rani, it was claimed that she had spent 'One lac on her treatment. She is still undergoing treatment. Naresh Kumar Dhingra claimed Rs. 10 lacs as compensation. He claimed that he remained admitted in All India Institute of Medical Sciences at Delhi from 6.6.98 to 17.6.98 and spent 'One lac on his treatment. When put to the notice, respondents No.1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle, filed joint written statement in which they claimed that Tata Sumo was not being driven rashly and negligently. It was stated that there were pits on the road and because of condition of the road, driver of the car could not control his vehicle. Insurance Company also took all the usual objections and denied its liability to pay the compensation.