NEERA TANGRI Vs. PRITAM DASS KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to decide these five appeals bearing Nos. 256, 296, 297, 298 and 470 of 1995 by common order as all the appeals arise from one accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has chosen to dispose of all claim applications by one order. Learned Counsel for the parties state that the same course be adopted by this Court also. Facts giving rise to these appeals need brief mentioned.

(2.) ON 9th of June, 1991, Om Parkash Tangri alongwith his wife Smt. Neera Tangri, his daughter Ashu Tangri, sons Arun Kumar and Vinay Kumar and one more person Parbhat Singh was coming from Delhi to Rajpura by Maruti Car No. CHE 6900. After crossing Madhuban Police Complex, when the car was heading towards Karnal on its left hand side being driven by Om Parkash at slow speed, one Truck No. HRJ 6451 belonging to Pritam Dass Khurana, which as per the claimants was being driven rashly and negligently on a very fast speed by Jit Singh respondent No. 2 came from the opposite direction on wrong side and struck against Maruti Car resulting into injuries to all the occupants of the car. The car was totally smashed. All the injured were removed to Arpana Hospital, Madhuban immediately but within few hours Om Parkash Tangri died. Five separate claim petitions arising out of this accident were filed. Smt. Neera Tangri claimed compensation on account of death of Om Parkash Tangri in the main petition referred to above. It was averred that Om Parkash Tangri was 43 years five months and 24 days of age on the date of accident and he was working as Accounts Manager in Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. , Rajpura earning Rs. 4599. 35 per month and his widow, two sons and one daughter were dependent upon him. In all a sum of Rs. 12,00,000.00 was claimed on account of death of Om Parkash. A sum of Rs. 1,15,000.00 was also claimed for damages caused to the car. In yet another claim petition filed by Vijay Tangri aged about 12 years, compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000.00 was claimed on account of injuries suffered by him. In yet another claim petition filed by Arun Tangri aged about 15-1/2 years, Rs. 5,00,000.00 were claimed on account of injuries suffered by him. In the main petition filed by Smt. Neera Tangri an amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 for the injuries sustained by her was claimed. Parbhat Singh aged 38 years filed yet another claim petition asking for Rs. 5,00,000.00 on account of injuries suffered by him. As mentioned above, all these claim petitions were consolidated and decided by common order.

(3.) AFTER resultant trial, all the claim petitions were dismissed. The findings on the crucial issue i. e. issue No. 1 were returned against the claimant-appellants. The learned Tribunal returned findings on issue No. 3 and 4 against the claimants. However, issue No. 2 was not decided as findings on issue No. 1 had turned against the claimants. With a view to prove issue No. 1 the claimants. With a view to prove issue No. 1 the claimants examined Smt. Neera Tangri PW-3 and Parbhat Singh PW-4 whereas in rebuttal respondents examined Jit Singh. There is no need at all to mention the evidence given by these three witnesses, two from the side of the appellants and one from the side of respondents as obviously they have supported the pleadings reflected in the claim petition and in the written statement.