MEENA SOOD Vs. GIAN CHAND AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY three claim petitions were preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') by different claimants, though, of the same family. Learned Tribunal consolidated all the three claim petitions and disposed off the same through an award dated 10.04.1996 thereby, dismissing all the three claim petitions with costs. Aggrieved over these findings, each of the claimants has preferred these appeals and being conjoint matters are being disposed off by this common judgment. The factual matrix which is necessitated to be reproduced are that on 2.10.1992 claimant Meena Sood along with her children Shipra Sood, daughter and master Kunal Sood, son latter both minors were going from Chandigarh to Delhi in a car bearing No.HP -39 -0333 (in short, 'ill fated car') which was being driven by Shamsher Chand Sood husband and father respectively of the claimants. It is claimed that the ill fated car is owned by respondent No.1 M/s Gian Chand and Sons being managed by Padam Chand Sood and insured with respondent No.2 -New Indian Assurance Company ltd. (in short, 'Insurer'). The facts which are common in all these cases as alleged by the claimants are that when the car reached in the area of village Shamgarh, District Karnal on the main G.T. Road, a truck, whose particulars have not been divulged came and hit their car. The claimants claimed that since the driver of the car was driving at a very high speed and in the middle of the road negligently the driver was not in a position to control the car and as a consequence of minor skirmish the car swerved and hit the road side trees. The claimants have pleaded that on account of the car turning turtle, as a consequence of this accident, they received injuries and were rushed to government Hospital, Karnal for necessary first aid.

(2.) CLAIMANT Meena Sood claims that she was a professional Interior Designer in a firm and on account of these injuries she was shifted to PGIMER, Chandigarh where she remained admitted from 3.10.1992 to 12.12.1992 in a private ward and spent more than Rs. 2,48,702/ - and had suffered injuries resulting in her incapacitation in carrying on her professional duties and, therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000/ - from the respondents.

(3.) CLAIMANT Shipra Sood, through her natural guardian and mother claimed that on account of facial injuries suffered by her has marred her future prospects and she is unable to live a normal life. Therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,50,500/ - from the respondents.