VISHAV BANDHU Vs. RAJIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal against the award passed by Shri R.P. Bashin, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala on 23rd May, 1985 wherein he has awarded Rs. 76800/ - to the claimants and respondents 1 and 2 are made liable to pay this amount jointly and severally to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts of the case were that Rajian and Jodha Ram are the parents of the deceased Randhir Singh whereas Dilbagh and Om Parkash are minor brothers of the deceased. At the time of accident the age of Randhir Singh was about 20 years. He was serving as compounder in Veterinary Hospital, Naraingarh and was drawing Rs. 850/ - per month. On 15.11.1983, at 8.15 A.M. Joginder Singh respondent No. 1 was driving truck No. HRA 6584 so rashly and negligently that he struck against the deceased, who was going on a cycle. Randhir Singh sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Naraingarh by respondent No. 1. The deceased was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he was declared dead. Respondent No. 2 (appellant) is the owner of the truck. Truck was not insured but was hypothecated with the State Bank of India, Naraingarh Branch. The Claimants submitted the claim petition as dependents and legal heirs of the deceased and claimed Rs. 2,00,000/ - as compensation.

(3.) PARTIES adduced evidence. The trial Court believing the claimants' evidence held that at the time of accident, the said truck was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently whereby he dashed it against the deceased who was coming on a cycle. Deceased sustained injuries. Respondent No. 1 himself took him to the Civil Hospital, Naraingarh from where deceased was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he was declared dead. On these findings, respondents 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the truck were held liable to pay compensation for vehicular accidental death of Randhir Singh. Hence, the said award was passed against these two respondents and respondent No. 3 was held not liable to pay anything to the claimants. Their petition was dismissed against respondent No. 3.