JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of FAO No. 597 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Surinder Kaur), FAO No. 598 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Bharpur Singh), FAO No. 599 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Santa Singh), FAO No. 600 of 1997 (Joginder Singh and others v. Surjit Kaur and others), and FAO No. 601 of 1997 (Joginder Singh v. Smt. Pritam Kaur), as these appeals arise out of the common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Panipat, dated 2.12.1996.

(2.) THE claimants in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal raised a claim arising out of the motor accident which took place on 26.5.1993. The case set up by the claimants was that on 26.5.1993 at about 2 PM truck No. HR29/5457 driven by Hardyal Singh, deceased, had started its journey from Barnala to Bareli. Shri Malkiat Singh alias Pala Singh, conductor, and one Bharpoor Singh were sitting on the left side of the driver. It was further the case of the claimants that Dalip Kaur, deceased, and Chand Singh were sitting on the rear seat of the truck. When the truck crossed village Siwah on the G.T. Road, all of a sudden Tata Four Wheeler bearing registration No. DDL 2775 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Joginder Singh, appellant, in the present appeals, came from the opposite Delhi side. It may be mentioned here that along with appellant Joginder Singh one Ajay Bijli, owner of Tata Four Wheeler and Insurance Company, are also appellants in the present appeals. The said Tata Four Wheeler tried to overtake a vehicle going ahead of it and in that process, all of a sudden, it came on the wrong side at a fast speed in front of the truck. The deceased Hardyal Singh, driver of the truck in order to avoid head-on collision, diverted the truck to his extreme left hand side. However, the truck was hit by the Tata Four Wheeler on its right side. As a result thereof, the truck turned turtle and on account of this accident, Malkiat Singh alias Pala Singh conductor of the truck died at the spot. Dalip Kaur and driver of truck Hardyal Singh and other occupants in the said truck received multiple injuries. Dalip Kaur and Hardyal Singh later on died on account of the injuries suffered by them. It was also the case of the claimants in all the claim petitions that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Four Wheeler which was being driven by Joginder Singh, who after the accident, ran away from the spot. Thereafter another Canter No. DDL/4486 which was coming from Delhi side also struck against the turned turtle truck. On account of the accident, FIR was lodged by one Darshan Singh. Appellant Joginder Singh was tried by the criminal Court. The Tata Four Wheeler was owned by appellant Ajay Bijli and same was insured with the United India Insurance Company. Santa Singh and Baldev Singh had claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs on account of the death of Smt. Dalip Kaur, who was travelling in the truck. Surjit Kaur widow of Hardyal Singh, deceased driver, along with her son Parbinder Singh, other minor children and the mother filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of Hardyal Singh. In the claim petition, compensation claimed was Rs. 5 lacs. Smt. Pritam Kaur alongwith Dalip Singh had claimed a compensation on account of the death of Malkiat Singh alias Pala Singh being dependent on him. In their claim petition, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was also claimed Bharpoor Singh also filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. He had claimed that he received multiple fractures. Surinder Kaur filed a claim for a sum of Rs. 1,22,238/- on account of the damage caused to her truck. The basis for claim was repair charges and loss of earning for a period of 84 days as she was not able to ply the truck during that period.

(3.) THE Insurance Company in its written statement admitted that Tata Four Wheeler was duly insured with it. It was also pleaded therein that the driver of the Tata Four Wheeler did not have a valid driving licence and that the owner had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On these pleas the Insurance company denied its liability to pay compensation.