NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LOVEPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATIONAL Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the Award dated 01.11.2014 passed by Shri Vivek Puri, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur vide which an amount of Rs.15,02,000/ - stood awarded to the claimants on an claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act on account of death of Sukhdeep Singh @ Seepa.

(2.) THE facts, as put forth by the claimants, are that on 14.1.2004 at about 1.30 PM, the deceased was going from village Rataul Rohi to his village Mudki while driving motor cycle at slow speed and on the left side of the road. Sukhdeep Singh son of Ajaib Singh was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle and they were being followed by Malkeet Singh on a separate motor cycle. When they reached Talwandi Bhai near Chhotian Turn, the offending vehicle came at high speed from behind and after overtaking the motor cycle of Malkeet Singh, it struck with the motor cycle being driven by the deceased. As a result thereof, both the occupants fell down on the road and sustained injuries. The head of the deceased was crushed under the wheel of the offending vehicle and he died on the spot.

(3.) ON notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and through written reply raised preliminary objection disputing the maintainability of the claim petition. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. On merits, it has been denied that the deceased was driving the motor cycle at slow speed on the left side of the road or the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. It has been alleged that the accident occurred due rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the deceased. The deceased was driving the motor cycle at a high speed and on the wrong side, without blowing the horn and struck with the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at slow speed and with due caution, on his left side. A false case has been registered against respondent No.1. It has been admitted that respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the same is insured with respondent No.3. The allegations with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased have been controverted.