HANSRAJ Vs. NEELAM CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN accident took place on December 23, 1978 at about 11.30 a.m. at the crossing of sectors 34/35, 43/44 at Chandigarh in which the scooter driven by the deceased Mohan Lal Suri and the truck driven by Shri Chand respondent were involved. Neelam Chopra was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter. As a result of the accident Mohan Lal Suri died at the spot and Neelam Chopra sustained injuries. The truck belonged to Hans Raj respondent and it was insured with the New India Assurance Company. The truck was financed by the Punjab and Sind Bank. In the wake of the accident two separate claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act were filed against the aforesaid Shri Chand, Hans Raj, New India Assurance Company and Punjab and Sind Bank; one by Smt. Maina Wati and Sunita Suri, mother and sister respectively of the deceased Mohan Lal Suri and the other by the injured Neelam Chopra. Both the petitions, having arisen out of the same accident, were tried jointly by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver Shri Chand. This was denied by Shri Chand and Hans Raj respondents. According to them the negligence on the part of the deceased Mohan Lal Suri had resulted in the accident. They also challenged the right of the deceased's sister to claim compensation. The Insurance Company toed the line of the Insurer Hans Raj, owner of the truck, and pleaded that in any case its liability is restricted to Rs. 50,000/- in each of the two cases. The Punjab and Sind Bank denied its liability to pay any compensation due to the accident. The Bank contended that simply because it had financed the truck no liability for payment of compensation can be fixed on it.

(3.) FROM these two awards of the Tribunal four appeals have arisen; two filed by Shri Chand, Hans Raj and the Insurance Company and the other two by the Punjab and Sind Bank (F.A.O. Nos. 177, 260 of 1983 and F.A.O. Nos. 272 and 273 of 1983 respectively). In these appeals the two awards of the Tribunal granting compensation to the mother and sister of the deceased and to the injured Neelam Chopra have been assailed. The claimants have also filed cross-objections in all the four appeals. Common questions of fact and law being involved in all the four appeals and the cross-objections the same are being decided together.