SUDESH Vs. HARMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the daughters of deceased Shakuntla Devi. They had filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- pertaining to an accident that took place on 1. 10. 1987 at 9. 00 a. m. near Jandli Bridge. It had been alleged that on 1. 10. 1987, Surinder Kumar was driving the scooter and was proceeding from Ambala City to Ambala Cantt. Shakuntla Devi was the pillion rider. When the scooter was getting down from Jandli Bridge, a truck bearing No. PAN 8703 came from Delhi side. It was being driven rashly and negligently. It struck against the scooter. As a result of the impact, Shakuntla Devi fell down and was run over by the rear wheel of the truck. She was even dragged for about 15 paces and died at the spot. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot. The appellants claimed that at the time of her death, Shakuntla Devi was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month by doing tailoring and cutting work.

(2.) NOTICE had been issued. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not contest the claim. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their separate written statements contested the claim petition mainly on the ground that it was the scooterist who was responsible for the death of the pillion rider. He had abruptly come from Jandli Bridge without caring for the oncoming traffic on the Shershah Suri Marg. The truck was stated to be driven at normal speed. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, in its written statement had asserted that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence. The truck was being driven without having route permit.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the appellant-claimants have filed the present appeal. None appeared on behalf of respondents. Therefore, this Court did not have the advantage of hearing respondents' counsel. The short controversy raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants was pertaining to the amount of compensation awarded. Though he does not dispute the multiplier of 12, but alleged that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was in error in assessing the loss to the appellants at Rs. 300/- per month.