VERSHA DEVI Vs. SHERU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the claimantappellants challenging the award dtd. 23/5/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon on two counts. Firstly, on the ground that it has wrongly been held to be a case of contributory negligence and secondly, on the quantum of compensation which has been awarded for the death of a 4-year old child.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present case are that on 25/2/2012 Baby Tulsi (since deceased) along with her mother, namely, Smt. Versha Devi and Manoj Singh (brother of Smt. Versha Devi) and other relatives were travelling in a Maruti Car bearing registration No.DL-2CL2038. They started their journey from Village Jakhora for Bullandshehar (UP). The car was being driven by Sanjay son of Ajab Singh at a moderate speed. It was around 10:00 am when they reached near Shekhupur Gathwa in the area of Police Station Khanpur (Bullandshehar) when a bus bearing registration No.UP-15F-8464, being driven by the driver at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Bullandshehar and hit the Maruti Car as a result of which all the occupants of the Maruti Car sustained serious multiple injuries. Baby Tulsi was shifted to Ajay Hospital, Bhopal Vihar and the other injured were shifted to a Hospital at Bullandhsehar by the villagers. On the statement of Manoj Singh (maternal uncle of the deceased) a case bearing FIR No.24 dtd. 25/2/2012 under Ss. 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Khanpur, District Bullandshehar (UP). The child succumbed to her injuries after remaining hospitalized from 25/2/2012 to 28/2/2012. Respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle admitted the factum of the accident. However, they asserted that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car. It was further averred that respondent No.1 was holding a valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a separate written statement taking a stand that the conditions of the policy had been violated and hence there was no liability of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :