JOGA SINGH Vs. PARDEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -claimants filed the present claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,00,000/ - on account of death of one Sanjeev Kumar on 4.4.2013 in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant -Joga Singh. However, on the statement of counsel representing the claimants on 23.10.2013, claim petition qua respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 was not pressed and therefore, the same was dismissed qua them.

(2.) IT may further be noticed that as per the statement made in the Court on 8.8.2013 by the appellant -Joga Singh, he is also owner of the offending vehicle and the same was not insured. As per the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, the claim petition was not maintainable and the respondents were not entitled to any compensation as they were not dependent upon the deceased. He further pleaded that no accident took place with his truck. He denied other allegations and prayed for dismissal of the claim application.

(3.) ON appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant in which Sanjeev Kumar son of Pardeep Kumar had died. Since claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.10.2013 on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, Kulwinder Kaur -respondent No. 2, who is mother of the deceased, is the only claimant in this case. Though in the written statement objection has been taken that claimants were not dependent upon the deceased and therefore, were not entitled to compensation yet no argument has been raised before the Tribunal as to how the claim petition was not maintainable on behalf of respondent No. 2, mother of the deceased. Even before this Court no such argument has been raised.