NEELU CHANDRA Vs. FAQUIR MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the challenge is to the award dated 12-3-1993 passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in m. A. C. T. Case No. 32 of 1992.

(2.) APPELLANTS-CLAIMANTS filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') claiming themselves to be legal representatives of deceased Anil Chandra, aged 38 1/2 years, who died in a road accident on 25-1-1990 within the area of village Khandsa while going to Sun Beam Casting Factory, Narsinghpur in a Maruti car bearing registration NO. DIC 5728 due to the rash and negligent driving of truck NO. GTY 7459 belonging to delhi-Amendabad Roadways and driven by Faquir mohd. , the driver. It was claimed that the deceased Anil Chandra was B. E. (Electrical)from Ranchi University and had further obtained Diploma in Marketing Management and Public Speakig as well. He was running two companies and was Director of the first company Nachiketa Fluidies Pvt. Ltd. , Delhi and Managing Director of second one, namely, Nivritti Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. It was further claimed that he used to draw a salary of Rs. 6,000 (rupees six thousand)per month from Nachiketa Fluidies Pvt. Ltd. , besides house rent of Rs. 1,200 per month along with other perks. He was also stated to be having additional income from interest, dividends and professional income from the other companies. It was also claimed that in all the deceased was earning Rs. 21,000 per month. It was also the case of the appellants-claimants that due to untimely death of Anil chandra, the claimants have suffered a mental agony and torture, which cannot be compensated in any manner. A compensation to the tune of Rs. 62,50,000 (rupees sixty-two lakh fifty thousand) was claimed under section 166 of the Act and interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum was also claimed.

(3.) THE claim petition was opposed by the respondents on the plea that the alleged accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was claimed that the deceased while overtaking the truck going ahead of him at the culvert having a width of hardly 15 ft had misconducted himself in not noticing another truck which was approaching from the opposite side. Deceased is alleged to have come on the wrong side of the road, where he got confused and lost control of his car and hit the right side bumper of the truck. It was claimed that the truck driver tried his best to avoid the accident and applied brakes with full force, but could not avoid the same. It was also claimed that if was a case of contributory negligence and accordingly claimed adjudication of the compensation in the proportion way.