SURAJ KUMAR Vs. HARJEET SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of FAO Nos. 4414 and 8057 of 2014, which arise out of award dated 17.10.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the claimant i.e. son of Babu Lal (deceased) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of death of Babu Lal on 10.05.2012 in a motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. PB-30D-9825 by respondent No.1. It was averred that Babu Lal (deceased) alongwith his son Suraj Kumar was going from Kotkapura in Bus bearing registration No. PB-30D-9825, which was overloaded and passengers were travelling on its roof. The deceased and his son were also made to sit on the roof top of the bus. The bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without caring about the safety of passengers made to sit on the roof top. When they reached near Singowali Dhani near Lambi, the driver took the bus to the extreme left side of the road and an overhanging branch of a tree stuck against Babu Lal due to which he fell on the road and died due to injuries sustained by him.

(3.) Learned Tribunal on considering the evidence on record found the testimony of PW1 Suraj Kumar (son of the deceased) to be reliable and trustworthy. It was held that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bus by its driver - respondent No. 1. However, it was observed that the claimant was not dependant upon the deceased i.e. his father. Therefore, he was awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/- i.e. Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- each towards loss of estate and transportation charges. It was further directed that as the deceased was travelling on the roof top due to over crowding of the bus, which was necessarily beyond 52 passengers insured by the insurance company, therefore, liberty was afforded to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the bus, by filing separate proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction.