RAM SARUP Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed againstthe judgment dated 6-12-1994 rendered by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, vide which it granted compensation in the sum of rs. 42,000 to the claimants, on account of the death of their son Karam Chand in a motor vehicle accident, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization.

(2.) THEFACTS, in belief, are that on 10-12-1993, karam Chand (now deceased) was coming from Ambala side, on a scooter, bearing no. HR01 -B-6684 driven by one Jagdish and when reached near Tangri bridge, Bus bearing no. CH01-G5126, driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash or negligent manner, came from jansui Headside and by going on the extreme right side of the road it struck against the scooter. The rider and the pillion rider of scooter bearing No. HR01 -B-6684 sustained multiple injuries, and died at the spot, on account of the same. It was stated, that the deceased was a tailor. He was also selling milk and in all, was earning Rs. 6,000 per month. He was spending his entire income on the claimants, his parents, who were entirely dependent upon him. Accordingly, compensation in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs, was claimed.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3, the owners of the bus in their written statement, stated that when the bus, in question, being driven by Om parkash, driver reached near Tangri bridge, he saw a Haryana Roadways bus coming at a very high speed. A heap of sand was lying on one side of the road for repairs. The said bus crossed over that heap of sand due to which there was sand all around. The scooterists were following the Haryana Roadways bus. They could not see, due to the scattering of sand and the dark vision and struck against the bus, in question, which was stopped by respondent No. 1, on one side of the road. It was further stated that the accident did not take place, on account of the rash or negligent driving of the bus, by respondent No. 1, and, as such, the claimants were not entitled to compensation. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.