KARTAR SINGH Vs. UDHAM SINGH SHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an accident which took place on March 24, 1986, Gurpreet Kaur wife of Udham Singh died. The claim petition was filed by her husband and her minor son Baneet Singh on June 13, 1986. During the pendency of this claim petition, they also moved an application under Section 92 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the Act') on May 11, 1987, claiming a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - on the principle of no fault liability. This application was contested on behalf of the owner of the truck, alleged to have caused the accident. According to the plea of the truck owner, his truck was never involved in the accident. However, the Tribunal, relying on the written statement filed on behalf of the truck owner, came to the conclusion that the moment it is admitted that the vehicle was involved in the accident, then without enquiring into the correctness of other objections which may be raised by the insurance company and the owner of the truck, the claimants were entitled to an award under Section 92 -A of the Act Consequently, vide the impugned order dated June 4,1987, he awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - under Section 92 -A of the Act.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the provisions of Section 92 -A of the Act were not attracted as the death has not resulted from an accident arising out of the use of the truck owned by him. According to him, it was some other truck which was involved, but the claimants have wrongly impleaded him as Respondent According to the learned Counsel, even in the First Information Report lodged by the claimants immediately after the accident his truck number was never given therein. According to the learned Counsel, there is no admission in the written statement as found by the learned Tribunal. Rather, it has been denied that his truck was involved in the accident though in the alternative it was pleaded that the alleged accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of the rickshaw puller.

(3.) NOT only that, from the conduct of the claimants, it appears that as this application under Section 92 -A of the Act was filed after about a year from the original claim petition, which further shows that they were not sure as to whether the said truck was involved or not. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and the impugned order is set aside.