RANDHIR SINGH Vs. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, the first filed by the owner of the offending truck, and the second filed by the claimants, against the Award dated 21st August, 2002, rendered by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Jind, relating to the same accident.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 19th september, 2000, at about 3. 05 p. m. Anil kumar, aged about 27 years, who was posted as Operator in Hero Honda Industry, and whose monthly salary was Rs. 14,274, along with one Ram Avtar Sharma, was going on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HR 36-C/ 6599 to Housing Board Colony, Dharuhera, after performing the duty, and when they reached just close to the liquor shop, near hero Honda Factory, one cycle came in front of the motorcycle, and Anil Kumar applied the brake. In the meantime, one tractor-trolley, bearing registration No. HRG-6460, came from the backs side, which was being driven by ram Phal, driver thereof, in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor struck against the said motorcycle, as a result whereof, both Anil kumar and Ram Avtar, fell down, on the road. The cyclist also fell down. Anil Kumar suffered head injury in this accident. Ram Avtar, pillion rider, also suffered injuries. An ambulance from Hero Honda Factory was called by Ram avtar Sharma, and Anil Kumar was taken to a hospital, at Delhi, as he had become unconscious. The driver of the truck ran away after leaving the tractor-trolley atthe spot. Anil kumar, succumbed to the injuries, suffered by him, in the accident. A report was lodged by ram Avtar, with the police, with regard to the said accident. It was further pleaded that meena, widow, aged about 20 years, Pala ram @ Ram, father, Smt. Sunheri, mother aged 45 years, Suman, sister aged 18 years and Anita, sister aged 25 years, were depending upon Anil Kumar, for their livelihood. On account of the death of Anil Kumar, they suffered a huge loss. Not only this, Anil Kumar was the only son of his parents. Accordingly, a petition under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the claimants, for grant of compensation, in the sum of rs. 30,00 lacs (thirty lacs only ).

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1, in his written statement, stated that no cause of action accrued to the claimants against him, as he never remained the driver of tractor No. HRG-6460. He further stated that he did not know about the owner of the tractor. It was further sated by him that a false criminal case was got registered against him, and the police arrested him from his house. It was further stated by him that he was not connected with the tractor or the accident in any manner. The remaining averments, were denied, eitherbeing wrong, or for want of knowledge.