INDIRA GOEL Vs. ASHOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short the Tribunal) in a MACT case No. 19 of 1992.

(2.) THE claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 read with section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) claiming a compensation on account of the death of Late P.P. Goel in a motor vehicular accident on 12.12.1991 at village Barot while going to Sonepat in his official Car bearing Registration No. HYW-79. The deceased was Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Government of Haryana and was aged 50 years at the time of his death. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 6500/- per month exclusive of allowances. The deceased had gone for inspection on the date of the accident and the vehicle was being driven by his driver Phool Singh. When the deceased was going to Sonepat at about 3.50 P.M., a truck bearing Registration No. PCW-4425 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car. The car was dragged and was thrown in ditches abutting the road. On account of the said accident both the driver and the deceased Shri P.P. Goel sustained injuries. Shri P.P. Goel was shifted to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. FIR No. 383 dated 12.12.1991 was also registered. It was claimed that the deceased used to give entire salary to the family and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was being spent on the education of claimant Neeraj Goel, a student of Medical College, Rohtak. It was claimed that the deceased would have lived up to the age of 80 years as per the longevity in the family and was to reach up to the rank of Engineer-in-Chief. Being a technical man, he could work as a consultant even after his retirement. A sum of Rs. 15 lacs was claimed as compensation.

(3.) THE Insurance Company pleaded that the car driver was solely responsible for the alleged mishap and FIR registered was false. It was claimed that the deceased was 55 years old. The entitlement of the claimants was also challenged. It was also claimed that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability.