SURJIT KAUR Vs. GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to the filing of this letters patent appeal are that Milkha Singh deceased, who was living with his daughter Surjit Kaur at Pul Sudhar in district Ludhiana, was lying asleep on the night intervening May 30 and 31, 1969, at a distance of about 40 feet from the main road. Military truck TP 1302 after colliding with two kikar trees over ran the cot on which Milkha Singh was sleeping. Because of the crushing by the truck, Milkha Singh died there and then Gurmail Singh who in a drunken condition was at the steering wheel of the truck and his two unconscious companions, were removed front the truck. On prosecution for causing the death of Milkha Singh due to the rash and negligent driving of truck No. TP 1302, Gurmel Singh was convicted by the criminal Court. Surjit Kaur appellant, who is the daughter of Milkha Singh and with whom he was living at the time of his death, filed a petition under section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) claiming compensation as the life of her father had been cut short by rash and negligent act of Gurmel Singh. Gurmel Singh, who is an employee of the Defence Forces, was driving the truck in the discharge of his duties. He along with the Union of India were arrayed as respondents.

(2.) THE claim was contested by the Union of India on the ground that Gurmel Singh was driving the truck without any authority and the deceased was also negligent in sleeping at a distance of only 20 feet from the main road. The respondents also contested the claim of the appellant on the ground that she was not a dependent on the deceased.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the appellant has addressed us on four points for the enhancement of the compensation :