NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO Vs. NEELAM BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NEW India Assurance Company has challenged the Award dated 08.05.1997 passed by Shri A.S.Garg, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala vide which claimant Neelam Bhatia has been allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/ - in respect of injuries suffered by her in motor vehicular accident.

(2.) THE claim of the claimant set up in the claim petition is that on 30.8.1995 claimant Neelam Bhatia was going from Panchkula to Jammu in her car No. CHK -8011 along with her husband Sunil Bhatia and friend Shri K.K.Kapoor and his wife Smt. Indira Kapoor. When they reached near village Haddo, her husband stopped the car on his left side. K.K.Kapoor was sitting besides him on front seat of the car, whereas, claimant Neelam Bhatia and Smt. Indira Kapoor were sitting on the rear seat of the car. Respondent No.1 Bhinder Singh was coming from the opposite directions in his car No. PB -25 -0095 and was going from Ludhiana to Chandigarh. He was driving the car in zig -zag manner and did not blow horn. It was at about 11.30a.m. In the meanwhile, a cow came on the road but since the respondent No.1 was driving the car at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner he could not control his vehicle and struck against the parked car of the claimant bearing No. CHK -8011 while coming on the wrong side of the road. The car of the claimant was standing on its left side of the road and the respondent No.1 was so rash and negligent that he came on his right side and dashed against the car of the claimant. It was further claimant's claim that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 who was driving the car No. PB -25 - 0095 owned by respondent No.2. The claimant Neelam Bhatia received multiple grievous injuries on various parts of her body due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Other occupants of the car also received injuries and the car was also badly damaged.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos.1 and 2 did not put in appearance in spite of service. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex -parte vide order dated 3.5.1996.