ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BALJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Baljinder Kaur-widow, Smt. Usha Rani-mother, Sh. Tarsem Lal-father, Ms. Tammana Rani-sister of Raman Kumar, an unfortunate victim of a road side accident had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation against the respondents i.e. Punjab State Bus Stand Management Company Ltd. (PUNBUS), Chandigarh, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Depot-II, Jalandharowner, Harkewal Singh-driver and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh-insurer of Bus No.PB-08-BA-9671 (hereafter referred to as the offending bus), claiming compensation.

(2.) As per version of the appellants/claimants, Raman Kumar was aged about 21 years and was working with Fatehgarh Bus Service and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. On 06.11.2015, at about 12.45 PM, said Raman Kumar was crossing Moga-Ludhiana road, trying to go towards Police Station City Moga from the side of Bus Stand, Moga to meet his uncle, who was standing in front of Police Station City, Moga. In the meanwhile, the offending bus being driven by respondent No.3- Harkewal Singh at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, came and hit Raman Kumar, with a result Raman Kumar fell on the ground and suffered multiple injuries, to which, he succumbed at the spot. Subsequently, FIR No.139 dated 07.11.2015 for offences under Sections 279, 304-A IPC with regard to accident was registered against Harkewal Singh, bus driver at Police Station City, Moga. According to the claimants, they were dependent upon the earnings of Raman Kumar deceased. They had filed the claim petition in question, claiming compensation of Rs.75 lacs.

(3.) On notice, all the respondents appeared. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a joint written statement, whereas, respondent Nos.3 & 4 came up with separate written replies. In the joint written reply filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2, they denied the involvement of bus in question in the accident, coming up with a plea that a false claim petition has been filed against them to extract money. Written statement filed by respondent No.3 is also on the similar lines, whereas, respondent No.4-Insurance Company in the written reply filed by it also denied involvement of bus in question in the accident, coming up with a plea that bus driver was not holding a legal and valid driving license at the time of accident and there was breach of other terms of the insurance policy also, therefore, insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured.