SAROJ Vs. CHHOTU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, challenge is to award dated 28.10.1988 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, awarding a sum of Rs. 77,000/- as compensation to the claimants (appellants herein) along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment, on account of death of Jai Parkash in motor vehicle accident that took place on 15.12.1986.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 15.12.1986, deceased, Jai Parkash, was coming on his scooter from Delhi and was heading towards Panipat. When he reached in front of Bansal Iron Factory, G.T. Road, Smalkha, a truck bearing registration No. PBV-4351 driven by respondent No. 1, Chhotu Ram, came and hit his scooter from back side as a result of which Jai Parkash, deceased, received grievous injuries on his person. He was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where he succumbed to his injuries on 23.12.1986. According to the claimants-appellants, the offending truck was being driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner and had he driven the truck at a normal speed with due care and caution, the accident could have been averted. It was stated that deceased Jai Parkash was 29 years of age and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. Claimants, namely, deceased's widow, a minor son and parents, filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, for the grant of compensation on account of death of Jai Parkash.

(3.) Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents 1 and 2 put in appearance. In their joint written statement, they denied the factum of accident with their truck, contending that on 14.12.1986 at about 10 P.M. respondent No. 1 along with his truck was at Delhi border and thereafter, when he reached near Kamal, he saw a scooter lying on the road in the damaged condition. Respondent No. 1 with the help of cleaner of the truck was about to move the scooter from the road when all of a sudden he was arrested by the police and implicated in the present case. As per respondents and 2, the scooterist might have met with an accident with some other vehicle and not with their truck. Respondent No. 3, namely, New India Assurance Company, filed its separate written statement thereby controverting the pleas raised by the claimants in the claim petition.