RAJ KUMAR Vs. SATYAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been instituted by owner and driver of the offending vehicle against the Award dtd. 9/8/2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak vide which a sum of Rs.50,000.00 has been awarded as compensation to petitioner and proforma respondents No.4 to 7 under no fault liability on account of death of their mother, namely, Chand Kaur, caused by the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No.HR-22-8849, being driven by appellant No.1-Raj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1) rashly and negligently which was owned by appellant No.2-Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.2) and insured with respondent No.3-NIC, whereby, respondents No.1 and 2 were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 5/11/1999, at about 8:30 A.M., Chand Kaur along with her son Ranbir was going to her fields to collect fodder for their cattle in a tractor. When they reached near Bahalba turning on National Highway No.10, they left the tractor there and started proceeding on foot towards their fields. In the meanwhile, TATA Tempo 407 vehicle bearing registration No.HR-22-8849, being driven by Raj Kumar-respondent No.1 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Meham side and hit Chand Kaur. Thereafter, the said vehicle also hit labourers, who were engaged at the spot in road construction work and some of them also sustained multiple injuries. The mother of the petitioner died at the spot as a result of the injuries sustained by her in the aforesaid accident. Soon after the accident, Ranbir, son of deceased Chand Kaur with the help of one Rajbir and some other villagers took the deceased and other injured to PGIMS, Rohtak, in the same offending vehicle. On reaching PGIMS, Rohtak, when they were busy in taking treatment, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the hospital. It is submitted that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving Tata Tempo bearing registration No.HR-22-8849.

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that a false case has been got registered against respondent No.1 in collusion with the police, solely with a view to obtain compensation, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. It was further contended that the deceased herself was negligent in crossing the road abruptly and without caring for the traffic. Respondent No.1 claimed that he had made his best efforts to avoid the accident but could not succeed and it was an act of God. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition was sought.