CHAJJU SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award dated 28.4.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in MACT Case No. 28 of 4.6.1996. The claimants are the father and mother of the deceased, Sukhwinder Singh who died in a road accident on 1.5.1996. It was the case of the claimants that on 1.5.1996 at about 8.30 P.M., a tractor trolley bearing No. PBV-6239 was going from the side of fields towards Mullanpur on the correct side of the road. Sukhwinder Singh was sitting on the right side mud-guard of the tractor. One bus bearing registration No. CH-01-G-5517 came from the opposite side while being driven at a high speed rashly and negligently by Harpal Singh and then the bus suddenly turned towards the wrong side and hit the tractor trolley from its front side. At the time of the accident, the tractor was between street light pole No. 118-119. On account of the impact, Sukhwinder Singh fell down from the tractor-trolley. As a result thereof, he received multiple injuries. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. It was claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligent and rash driving of the bus No. CH-01-G-5517 by Harpal Singh. Sukhwinder Singh was stated to be aged 18 years and self-employed. It was claimed that he was doing the business of welding in village Dhanas, U.T, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE petition was contested by respondent No. 2, in which it was claimed that right wheel of the tractor had struck against the bus adjacent to the diesel tank on account of loss of control by the driver of the tractor. Negligence on the part of the bus driver was denied. It was further claimed that a false FIR was got registered against Harpal Singh, respondent No. 3. It was also claimed that the driver of the tractor was not having a valid driving licence and that tractor was not insured. A further plea taken by the respondent was that there was no provision for the persons to travel on the tractor and therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :