CHARANJIT KAUR Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an award passed by learned motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar vide which claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000 was awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual realisation. It was further held that each of the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,25,000.

(2.) THE case set up by the claimants was that the deceased Nirmaljit Singh, resident of Urban Estate, Jalandhar was proceeding towards his house on 25. 4. 1999 at about 10. 30 a. m. on his scooter No. PB 08-A 3505 and he was going on left side of the road. The jeep bearing No. PJP 338 driven by Prem Singh, respondent No. 1, at a high speed rashly and negligently struck against the scooter from behind resulting in multiple injuries to him. The driver escaped from the spot along with his vehicle. One kamaljit Singh was coming just behind on another scooter and was following Nirmaljit Singh. He saw the occurrence and took nirmaljit Singh to Kahlon Nursing and maternity Home for treatment. Nirmaljit singh was thereafter referred to Christian medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where he died on 26. 4. 1999. Thereafter, kamaljit Singh lodged the F. I. R. at the police station. Death of Nirmaljit Singh had taken place in motor vehicle accident caused by the jeep No. PJP 338 driven by prem Singh, respondent No. 1. Said jeep was owned by the Punjab State. Nirmaljit singh was aged about 43 years and was manager, Inspection Department, Punjab and Sind Bank and was earning a sum of rs. 18,689. 97. The widow and the minor children of the deceased filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000.

(3.) ON notice having been issued the claim was contested by the respondents. While respondent No. 1 admitted that the case has been registered at Police Station, division No. 7, Jalandhar against him but he claimed that it was a false case. He claimed that on the date of occurrence the deceased was driving his scooter No. PB 08-A 3505 towards Urban Estate, Phase-II, jalandhar whereas respondent No. 1 was following on the scooter at some distance. It was further claimed that when the scooter reached near the place of occurrence then the scooterist without giving any indication turned towards the road all of a sudden and he took the turn without bothering for the traffic coming from behind. It was in this process that the deceased along with the scooter No. PB 08-A 3505 came in front of the vehicle driven by respondent No. 1 who applied the brakes and had taken his vehicle towards the right side of the road to avoid the impact with the scooter of the deceased. In this process the deceased got perplexed and struck his scooter against electric pole and sustained injuries. It was claimed that accident had occurred clearly due to rash and negligent act of the deceased and the respondent No. 1 was not at fault. It was further claimed that the respondents were not liable to pay the compensation.