ANITA TENEJA Vs. SANTOSH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Fast Track Court, Karnal (for short the 'Tribunal') dated 28.2.2005 dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present claim petition are that on 24.6.2000 the deceased Ashish Teneja was on tour for the sale promotion of the company - M/s Berry Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Karnal, while being stationed at Reeva. On the said date, the deceased started from Reeva and was going to Sidhi in bus bearing registration No. CIE-63 and when it covered about 10 kms. prior to Sidhi, the driver of the bus respondent No. 1 - Santosh Pandey, who was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed without observing the traffic rules, is alleged to have lost the control of the bus which fell in the nullah. As a result thereof, many occupants of the bus died including deceased Ashish Taneja, while other persons received multiple injuries. The accident had taken place at about 2/2.30 p.m. and the driver of the bus was challaned by the local police for causing the accident. It was alleged that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and accordingly claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs along with interest. It was pleaded that an FIR dated 24.6.2000 under Sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Sidhi. It was claimed that the deceased was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. However, in the FIR he was shown to be 48 years of age. It was claimed that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month plus incentives etc.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in his written statement challenged the locus standi of the claimants to file and maintain the present claim petition. It was claimed that the claimants had no cause of action against the answering respondent. It was pleaded that the claim petition was filed on false and frivolous grounds in order to harass the answering respondent. It was also claimed that the bus was being driven at a normal speed and all precautions were being taken which are expected from a driver.