RAJ KALI AND OTHERS Vs. PARMINDER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal for modification of award dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in MACT Case No.63 of 2011 to the extent that less compensation has been awarded to them.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present appeal are that a petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as "the MV Act, 1988") was initially filed for grant of compensation on account of injuries sustained by Des Raj. During pendency of the claim petition, Des Raj died and thereafter, his widow and two sons amended the petition in order to convert it to a petition for claiming compensation on account of death of deceased-Des Raj.

(3.) On 11.10.2011, deceased-Des Raj was returning to his native village on Motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02S-0178, which was being driven by Paramjeet Singh (driver of the motorcycle). When they reached near Government Tubewell of their village, a TATA Ace vehicle No. HR-58-8598 came from the school side at a high speed and hit the motorcycle. The deceased sustained multiple and grievous injuries on his person. He was brought to Jindal Hospital, Jagadhri and was provided adequate treatment. He could not recover and thereafter, he remained in coma till his death, which occurred on 05.12.2012. Initially, the petition was filed by the deceased-Des Raj through his wife-Raj Kali being his guardian ad-litem as he himself was not physically fit on account of unconsciousness. The offending vehicle was owned by Parveen Kumar and it was insured with the insurance company. The claimants impleaded the driver, owner and insurance company of the motorcycle as party in the claim petition. The deceased was 63 years of age at the time of death and was stated to be earning Rs. 15,000.00 per month by trading in the business of timber. FIR No.103 dated 29.11.2011 was registered at Police Station Jathlana relating to that accident. The claim petition was contested by the insurance company as well as driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The following issues were framed by the MACT: -