PRITAM KAUR Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - claimant - Pritam Kaur had filed a petition under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondents i.e. Gurnam Singh - driver, M/s New Pritam Bus Service, Patiala - owner of bus having registration No.PB-11-E-3595 and Insurance Company of the said bus, though particulars of the insurance company were not given and it was mentioned that those were to be disclosed by respondents No.1 and 2, then Jagjit Singh - driver, Ramesh Kumar - owner and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Sangrur - insurer of truck No.PB-13/2161, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lacs on account of death of her husband Hazura Singh in the motor vehicular accident.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner/claimant, on 3/7/1994 her husband Hazura Singh was travelling in a truck having registration No.PB-13/2161 going from Rajpura to Zirakpur; that when the said truck reached near Pehar, a bus bearing registration No.PB-11-E-3595 came from Zirakpur side, which was being driven by Gurnam Singh - respondent No.1 in a very rash and negligent manner; that on reaching near the truck, Gurnam Singh, bus driver lost control, resultantly the bus hit against front portion of the truck due to which Hazura Singh fell down from the truck and was crushed under tyres of the bus and died at the spot; that formal FIR for the offences under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rajpura. According to the claimant, Hazura Singh was aged about 58 years and he was earning Rs.3,000.00 per month; that the claimant was fully dependent upon him.

(3.) On notice of the claim petition, only respondents No.4, 5 and 6 put in appearance, whereas respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte and due to their non-appearance particulars of respondent No.3 were not disclosed, as such could not be entered on the memo of the parties. In the written statement submitted on behalf of respondent No.4 - truck driver, he denied all the allegations in the claim petition refuting that Hazura Singh was travelling in his truck or that the accident had taken place due to contributory negligence. According to him, no such accident had taken place with his truck and he had been falsely involved in the criminal case.