URMILA DEVI Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOTOR Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, on April 24,1984 allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 59,854/- to Urmila Devi and others. This award is under challenge in this appeal filed by Urmila Devi and others.

(2.) RAM Parkash, husband of Urmila Devi appellant, along with Sham Lai and Kul Bhushan was going on a rickshaw near bypass Samrala at Ludhiana on January 27, 1983. Truck No. MWT 2025 driven by Baljit Singh came from behind at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It hit the rickshaw which turned turtle. The occupants of the rickshaw fell down. Ram Parkash was crushed by the truck. The others also suffered injuries. Ram Parkash was taken to C. M. C. Hospital, Ludhiana where he was treated for two days. He died there. He was aged about 37 years and earning Rs. 1,000/- per month from his business of hand-pump and pipe fittings. Urmila Devi and her minor children claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the claim petition which was filed against Baljit Singh, driver of the truck; Pal Singh and Didar Singh, owners of the truck; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with whom the truck was insured. The respondents filed separate written statements contesting the claim petition. They denied rash and negligent driving of the truck causing the death. They also denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month or that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was spent on his treatment. It was alleged that the driver of the truck did not possess any driving licence and liability of the insurance company was disputed. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal: (1) Whether Ram Parkash died on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. MWT 2025 driven by Baljit Singh respondent No. 1? (2) To what amount of compensation the applicants are entitled and from whom? (3) Relief

(3.) UNDER issue No. 1, it was held that Ram Parkash died on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck by Baljit Singh respondent. Under issue No. 2, the claimants were allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 59,854/ -. The liability of the insurance company was fixed at Rs. 50,000/ -. Finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 is not challenged in this appeal and the same is, therefore, affirmed.