MISS PALVI JAIN Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of F. A. O. Nos. 379, 380 and 381 of 1982 and cross -objections Nos. 11.C -II and 12 -C -II and 13 -C -II of 1983 filed respectively in the aforesaid appeals as they arise out of the same award dated 29.1.1982 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 19.11.1980, car No. DEA 2015 was being driven by Dr. Janeshwar Lal Jain, deceased from Ambala to Delhi. The other two occupants of the car were Smt, Shashi Jain and Miss Palvi Jain. Another car No. CHA 1019 was following it and its occupants were Sarvshri Sumer Chand, Suraj Parkash and Smt. Lajwanti. When the car being driven by the deceased reached near village Karhana on the G.T. Road in the area of Police station Samalkha, a truck No. HRU 714 driven by Mohinder Singh, Respondent No. 1 came at high speed from Delhi side. It was being driven rashly and negligently. The driver was unable to control the truck which came at the wrong side of the road and struck against car No. DEA 2015 on its right side. Dr. Janeshwar Lal Jain having suffered fatal injuries sccumbed to the same at the spot. The other two occupants Smt. Shashi Jain and Miss Palvi Jain suffered injuries on their bodies. The post mortem examination of the deceased was done by Dr. V. K. Gupta, at Civil Hospital, Panipot. The injured persons were given medical aid and thereafter referred to Chritrian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for further treatment. The deceased at the time of his death was stated to be an Eye Specialist as well as a Physician. He was running Jain Eye Hospital at Ambala. His income was stated to be Rs. 5000/ - per month. A claim application under Sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed by his widow Smt. Shashi Jain, his two minor sons Deepak Jain and Shanvi Jain, daughter Palvi Jain and his mother Smt. Lajja Wanti claiming Rs. 300000/ - on account of his death Smt. Shashi Jain and Miss Palvi Jain claimants also filed two separate claim applications claiming Rs. 40,000/ - each as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by them and for pain and sufferings resulting therefrom. The driver, the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company were arrayed as Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to these claim applications. While Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the first instance, were proceeded against expert by the learned Tribunal, at a later stage Respondent No. 2 appeared and got the expert proceedings set aside. The Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contested the three claim applications and filed separate written statements. It was denied that car No. DEA 2015 was going ahead of car No. CHA 1019 or that Smt. Shashi Jain and Miss Palvi Jain claimants were traveling in the former car along with the deceased. Although the manner in which the accident took place as mentioned in the claim applications, was denied, no counter version was put forward as to how the accident occurred except that it was averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car. The claim in all the three claim applications as such was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as may as six issues. In the present appeals and cross objections, however, we are concerned with the following two issues only:

(3.) All the three claim applications were consolidated and tried together and on the basis of evidence recorded, the learned Tribunal returned an affirmative finding on issue No. 1 holding that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRU 714 which was being driven by Respondent No. 1 at the relevant time. Under issue No. 2, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000/ -was awarded to the claimants on account of death of Dr. Janesh war La] Jain out of which Insurance Company Respondent No. 3 was held liable for the payment of Rs. 50,000/ - Smt. Shashi Jain Miss Pa\vi Jain were awarded compensation amounting to Rs 5000/ -each on account of the injuries sustained by them in the accident and the insurance Company, Respondent No. 3 alone was made liable to pay the amount.