K G NATHANI Vs. HARUN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine shall dispose of four appeals, namely, FAO Nos. 190, 191, 192 and 262 of 1988 as common question of law and facts is involved therein, having arisen out of same accident. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 30.10.1986, at about 7 P.M. appellant Dr.K.G.Nathani along with his wife Smt. Santosh Nathani and four minor daughters was travelling in Car No.MBW-131 being driven by Rajesh Singh and were heading towards Ambala. A bus bearing registration No.HRW-4575, belonging to Haryana Roadways, Faridabad depot, driven by Haroon Khan was moving ahead of them. The driver of the car, namely, Rajesh Singh blew horn thereby showing his intention to overtake the bus. On a signal given by the bus driver, the car driver overtook the bus. From the opposite direction, a tempo (4-wheeler) No.DBL-1775 was coming. As soon as the car overtook the bus, the bus hit the car from behind due to which the car dashed against the on-coming tempo and thereafter the bus driver fled away from the spot along with the bus. The occupants of the car, Dr. Nathani and his family sustained injuries while driver Rajesh Singh died at the spot. Later, Dr.Nathani's wife, namely, Smt. Santosh Nathani and their three month old daughter named Baby succumbed to their injuries.

(2.) As a result of the above accident, appellant-Dr.Nathani filed three claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, claiming compensation on account of death of his wife and daughter and for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In claim petition No.10 of 1987 he claimed compensation on account of injuries received by him including multiple fractures, disability and expenses incurred on treatment, travel and diet. In claim petition No.11 of 1987, compensation was claimed on account of death of daughter aged three months. In claim petition No.12 of 1987, Dr. Nathani claimed compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Santosh Nathani.

(3.) The fourth claim petition, i.e. Claim petition No. 9 of 1987 was filed by Sulekha Devi, widow of Rajesh Singh (driver of car), two minor children and parents of the deceased. The claim petitions have been preferred against the driver and owner of the Haryana Roadways bus, i.e. respondents 1 to 3, the owner of tempo-respondent No.4, driver of tempo-respondent No.5 and insurer of the tempo-respondent No.6. Upon notice of the claim petitions, one set of written statement was filed by respondents 1 to 3 wherein the averments of the claim petition were denied and it was pleaded that the bus in question was not involved in the accident. On behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6, three separate written statements were preferred in which they also denied their respective liability and pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Besides, respondent No.6-insurer of the tempo, took up the objection that it was not liable to pay compensation since the driver of the tempo was not holding a valid driving licence. On pleadings of the parties, issues were struck by the Tribunal whereafter the parties led their respective evidence.