SURJIT SINGH Vs. DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioners/claimants Sh.Dinesh Kumar, aged about 40 years and his wife Smt.Kanta Rani, aged about 39 years, parents of Vishakha, an unfortunate victim of a road side accident had brought a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents i.e. Nasib Singh driver, Surjit Singh owner and National Assurance Company Ltd. - insurer of tractor bearing registration No.PB-23A-7277 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs.

(2.) As per the case of the claimants on 17.6.2014 Ms. Vishakha along with her classmate Ms.Diksha of village Rajju Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala had gone to Naraingarh for taking tuition; that at about 11:00 a.m., when both of them were returning to their village riding two wheeler, scooter make Hero Pleasure having registration No.HR-04E-8577 and had reached near Petrol Pump of village Barsu Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, in the meanwhile the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 - Nasib Singh in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn came from Naraingarh side and struck against the scooter, as a result both the riders fell down on the road; that the wheel of the trolley ran over head of Vishakha with the result, she died at the spot, whereas her friend Diksha sustained multiple injuries; that respondent No.1 Nasib Singh had run away from the spot after the accident, but he was apprehended by the people at some distance from the place of accident; that Diksha was taken to General Hospital, Naraingarh for treatment; that post-mortem examination on the deadbody of deceased Vishakha was conducted at that very hospital; that formal FIR No.133 dated 17.6.2014 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC with regard to the accident was registered at Police Station Naraingarh against respondent No.1 Nasib Singh on the basis of statement of claimant Dinesh Kumar father of the deceased. According to the claimants, at the time of her death, the deceased was a healthy young girl of 15 years; that she was a brilliant student studying in 10+1 class.

(3.) On notice, the respondents appeared. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement, whereas respondent No.3 filed a separate written statement. In the joint written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2, they have raised several preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the petition and dubbing it as false and frivolous petition. On merits, such respondents denied the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident rather stated that a false FIR has been registered against respondent No.1 by involving the said truck, however, such respondents admitted that the offending vehicle belongs to respondent No.2.