GURNAM SINGH Vs. SUDESH KUMARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Gurnam Singh, owner of the offending vehicle has filed the present appeal to challenge the award dated 24.7.2010 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), vide which, the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,78,000/- has been awarded to claimants No.1 to 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, whereas, Insurance Company was exempted to pay any compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that claimants, who are widow, minor children and father of deceased-Gian Singh filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for grant of compensation by stating that on 10.9.2008, Gian Singh along with his son Ravi Kumar were going towards Katcha Machhiwara for their domestic work on motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by Gian Singh and Ravi Kumar was pillion rider. When Gian Singh reached near Baba Flahi Chowk in revenue limits of village Sherpur Bet, a bus bearing registration No. PB-31-F-0391 being driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver came from the side of Sherpur Bet and hit against the motorcycle of Gian Singh, as a result of which Gian Singh and his son Ravi Kumar fell on the road and sustained serious multiple injuries. Gian Singh died at the spot and Ravi Kumar was shifted to Civil Hospital, Machhiwara in an injured condition. Deceased was 48 years of age and he being ex-serviceman was doing job in S.C.L. (Fire Brigade) Coy, Phase-8, Mohali and was earning Rs. 4500/- per month.

(3.) The claim petition was contested by owner, driver and Insurance Company by raising various grounds and by filing separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the respondent-Insurance Company, it was mentioned that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation as neither the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence nor the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective route permit. Respondent-Insurance Company also raised an objection that no accident had taken place with the offending vehicle and at the most, it could be a case of contributory negligence but still the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act was allowed.