ARJAN SINGH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is claimants' appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for brevity 'the Act'), awarding a sum of Rs. 60,400/- to claimant- appellants Arjan Singh and Bimla Devi father and mother of deceased Avtar Singh by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 3).

(2.) The unfortunate accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HPB1139, driven by respondent No. 1-Suresh Kumar on June 1, 1986 at Nangal. An FIR No. 34 dated June 1, 1986 (Ex.P1) was promptly lodged at Police Station Nangal showing the accident has been taken place. The FIR was recorded on the statement made by Arjan Singh. The Tribunal has recoded a firm finding on issue No. 1 in para 8, as to whether accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HPB 1139 which was being driven by Suresh Kumar- respondent No. 1 on June 1, 1986. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal read as under: In this case the driver of the truck also appeared as R.W.1 and has given the version of the accident. According to Suresh Kumar when he was driving his truck at the speed of about 30 kilometers per hour, he found two motor cycle borne persons coming from his right side from the side lane from the market side and entering the road and according to him the motor cycle hit against the rear right side of his truck and in that manner the accident took place. He also admitted that there was a crossing at the place of accident and the motor cyclists were coming from his right hand side entering the road. The very fact that he admitted to have seen the motor cyclists coming from the right hand side lane earlier to his own truck had reached the point where the road from the lane entered the crossing shows that the motor cyclists were still ahead of the truck before they entered the crossing. According to him the motor cycle had hit the rear back side but in case the motor cyclists were coming from his right side and were ahead of the truck and were to enter the crossing, it was his duty to have allowed them to enter the crossing before he himself entered that crossing. Respondent No. 1 Suresh Kumar admits that the accident took place in the crossing which means that there was intersection of the road. The tenth schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provide driving regulations.

(3.) The Tribunal also found blatant violation of Regulations 6 and 7 of the Regulations as given in the 10th Schedule of the Act. It has further been found that Avtar Singh, the son of the claimant- appellants died on the spot. The post mortem report Ex.P7 proves the injuries sustained by Avtar Singh in this accident.