LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-72

CHAMAN LAL Vs. JAI BHAGWAN

Decided On August 02, 2006
CHAMAN LAL Appellant
V/S
JAI BHAGWAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the claimants, Chaman Lal and Raj Rani against award dated 10.9.1990 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuinal, Karnal.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 23.7.1989 at about 9 AM, Balbir Singh, deceased, i.e. son of the claimants, was standing at Bus Adda, Gheer, Tehsil and District Karnal while few other persons including Ran Singh, claimant, and Bhajan Singh were standing nearby on the kacha portion of the road. At that time, bus bearing registration No. HYK-4973 belonging to Haryana Roadways, driven by Jai Bhagwan came in a rash and negligent manner and hit Bhajan Singh, Ran Singh and then Balbir Singh. The bus after hitting these persons, instead of stopping at the spot, stopped at a distance of about 150 pace ahead. Thereafter, its driver fled away. Due to this accident, Bhajan Singh, Ran Singh and Balbir Singh sustained injuries out of whom Balbir Singh succumbed to the injuries. Claimants then filed petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of Balbir Singh. Second claim petition was filed by Ran Singh for the injuries received by him in the said accident.

(3.) Upon notice of claim petition, joint written statement was filed by respondents 2 and 3 in their joint written statement pleaded that the offending bus was being driven at a normal speed and cautiously but the accident occurred on account of sudden failure of brakes and due to the fact that deceased Balbir Singh wanted to cross the road rashly without caring for the traffic on the road. Respondent No. 1 initially had put in appearance but later on absented and for this reason, was proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No. 4, namely, National Insurance Company Limited, in its written statement took up the plea by way of preliminary objection that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. It was stated that the said vehicle was not insured with it at the time of accident.