HARBANS SINGH Vs. MAKHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2nd March, 1979 there was an accident between an ambassador car PUB 1235 and Motor Cycle No PUL 6091 coming from the opposite direction near the Bus stop of Village AkoiSahib at about 6.45 P.M. It is alleged that Makhan Lal was driving the car and it was owned by his father Sohan Lal Originally the car was purchased by Panna Lal. Amolak Singh, aged 25 who was driving the Motor Cycle was injured in the accident and ultimately on the night between 15th/16th May, 1979 succumbed to his injuries. The parents of the deceased filed claim application and impleaded all the aforesaid persons. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the United India Assurance Co. Ltd. were also impleaded as the claimants were not sure as to with which Company the Car was insured. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application after recording a finding that Makhan Lal was not driving the car and that it was not proved that the driver of the car was negligent. No finding was given as to who was the owner of the car and in case negligence was proved, bow much compensation was payable. This is appeal by the claimants.

(2.) SHRI Pawan Bansal, learned Counsel for the appellants has argued on behalf of the claimants that it has been proved on the record that the car was originally purchased by Panna Lal and he continued to be registered as an owner till the date of the accident. Since there is no evidence about the sale of the car by Panna Lal to Sohan Lal, whether the car was driven by Makhan Lal or some other driver it would hardly matter. Panna Lal was impleaded but he did not put in appearance and was, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. Since he is the registered owner of the car and his car was involved in the accident and according to the evidence produced by the claimants whosoever was driving the car was negligent. On this basis award should have been given against Panna Lal. In this appeal also Panna Lal is absent despite service and, therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal ex-parte.

(3.) ADVERTING to the quantum of the compensation, there is unrebutted statement of father of the deceased that he spent Rs. 6000/- on medical treatment. The deceased remained in the hospital for 2 1/2 months during which period they had attended on him and had to provide special diet and medicines. There is no challenge to the aforesaid statement of the father. Accordingly, the uncontroverted statement is believed and I hold that the claimants deserve to be allowed Rs. 6000/- towards the amount spent on the treatment.