MANPREET SINGH @ RINKU Vs. KARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of two appeals bearing FAO Nos. 3622 and 3627 of 2015 filed by the owner -cum -driver against the Awards dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar Mohali in claim petition Nos.60 and 61 of 24.04.2014 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Karamjit Kaur on account of injuries received by her and on account of death of her son in the same accident.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that, Karamjit Kaur -claimant (respondent herein) claimed that on 23.02.2014, she along with her son Taranjot Singh riding pillion of a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB -65 -G -2961 driven by her son, were going from Kharar to Khanpur. One Harsangat Singh on a separate motorcycle bearing registration No.CH -03L -1832 was also going from the same way. At about 6.00 p.m., when claimant Karamjit Kaur and her son Taranjot Singh reached near traffic lights at Kharar, the present appellant Manpreet @ Rinku brought his Lancer Car bearing registration No.PB -65M -0097 being driven in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn struck against the motorcycle driven by Taranjot Singh. As a result of which both fell down and received grievous injuries. Both of them were removed to Civil Hospital, Kharar from where they were referred to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh. The claimant Karamjit Kaur discharged from there on 10.03.2014. However, her son Taranjot Singh succumbed to injuries on 13.03.2014. In this regard, FIR No.51, dated 13.03.2014 was registered under Sections 279 and 304 -A IPC, at Police Station City Kharar. In claim petition No.61 of 24.04.2014, regarding the death of her son Taranjot Singh, the Tribunal awarded Rs.14,83,000/ - (rupees fourteen lac eighty three thousand only) whereas in claim petition No.60 of 24.04.2014, regarding the injuries received by claimantKaramnjit Kaur, Rs.26,065/ - (rupees twenty six thousnad sixty five only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization in both the claim petitions. The respondent (appellant herein) was held liable to pay the said compensation.

(3.) FEELING dissatisfied with the Awards, the owner -cumdriver of the offending vehicle has come up in the present appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.