NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAROJ DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this appeal against Smt.Saroj Devi, Ajay, Neeraj, Ram Singh, Phooldeen and Saleem Khan respondents challenging the award dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), vide which the claim of Rs. 25,52,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the actual realization has been awarded.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that claimants Smt.Saroj Devi, Ajay, Neeraj and Ram Singh filed claim petition against Phooldeen, driver, Saleem Khan, owner and The New India Assurance Company, insurer of offending TATA Ace bearing registration No.HR-56-9465 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated in the claim petition that on 24.06.2011, Ombir was going towards the side of Police Post Ranjitpur on motorcycle No.HR-02M-6840 of Police Department after completion of his VIP duty. He was driving his motorcycle at a normal speed and on his correct left hand side of the road. At about 9.00 P.M., when he reached near Morya petrol pump, the offending vehicle Tata Ace No.HR-56-9465 being driven by Phooldeen rashly and negligently and at a very fast speed, came from behind side. One mule cart was also going ahead of the offending vehicle. Due to the glare lights of oncoming vehicles, the driver of offending vehicle turned his vehicle towards left side to save the mule and struck against the motorcycle of Ombir from behind. As a result, Ombir fell down along with his motorcycle and received multiple and grievous injuries and died at the spot. A criminal case was registered at Police Station Sadar Jagadhri. Post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted in Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. It is further stated in the petition that deceased Ombir was 40 years of age at that time and posted as Head Contable in Haryana Police and his monthly income was Rs. 25,000/-. He was only bread earner of his family and the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased.

(3.) In reply to the claim petition, respondent No.1 and 2, i.e. driver and owner pleaded that accident did not take place due to negligence of respondent No.1 as he was driving his vehicle at a moderate speed and on his correct left side of the road but it was deceased Ombir who was driving his motorcycle No.HR-02M-6840 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the vehicle of respondent No.1 driver. It was further pleaded that the police registered a false case against respondent No.1 in collusion with claimants.