MUNNI DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. ROSHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Rajinder Singh (hereinafter to be referred "deceased"). The appellants-claimants are widow and two minor sons respectively.

(2.) A claim petition was filed under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') with the averments that on 16.08.2001 at about 8.00 PM deceased, aged about 50 years, going to his village Bilaspur, District Gurugram on left side of the road. When he reached in front of Chandan Hotel, a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.HR47/6120 (hereinafter referred as "offending jeep"), driven by respondent No.1-Roshan in a very rash and negligent manner, came from the side of Bilaspur Chowk and hit the deceased from behind. Due to impact, he received severe injuries all over his body and brought to Raman Munjal Memorial Hospital, Sidhrawali, Gurugram. Thereafter, from where he was referred to Kalyani Hospital, Gurugram and ultimately to Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, New Delhi, where he died on 28.08.2001 as a result of injuries suffered by him in the said accident. Further averred that an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) was spent on his treatment and Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) on funeral expenses. As per claim petition, the deceased was owner of 8.5 acres of agricultural land, doing farming work and earning annual income of Rs.1,20,000/-. An FIR No.184 dated 17.08.2001, under Section 279 and 304-A IPC was registered against respondent No.1 at Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurugram. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are driver, owner and insurer, respectively.

(3.) In response to the claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2 filed separate replies and opposed the claim petition on various grounds including locus-standi and involvement of the offending jeep. Also submitted that neither any accident had taken place; nor the offending jeep was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Further submitted that even the offending jeep was duly insured with respondent No.3 and as such, respondents No.1 and 2 are not entitled for any compensation from them. Respondent No.3 filed separate reply similar to respondents No.1 and 2. and also submitted that driver of the offending jeep (respondent No.1) was not having a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident.