AMANDEEP KAUR Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/claimants Smt. Amandeep Kaur, aged about 24 years-widow, Master Vikramjeet Singh, aged about 01 years-minor son and Smt. Amrik Kaur, aged about 50 years-mother of Gurpreet Singh, an unfortunate victim of a road side accident, had filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lacs against the respondents i.e. Surjit Singh-owner and National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh-insurer of Car No.PB-65-L-6822. As per version of claimants, on 22.05.2011 at about 3.45 PM, deceased Gurpreet Singh was coming from Hemkund Sahib to Chandigarh via Rudraprayag, driving Indigo Car bearing registration No.PB-65-L-6822 and when, he reached Rudraprayag City, the car went out of control and fell in a ditch. The deceased received serious injuries and died. At the time of his death in the accident, deceased was aged about 28 years, doing private work, earning Rs.3300/-per month. The claimants were dependent upon his income. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was spent by them on his cremation. They prayed that the claim petition be accepted.

(2.) On being put to notice, both the respondents appeared and filed written statements. In the written statement filed by respondent No.l, he almost conceded the case of claimants, contending that the deceased had a valid and effective driving license to drive the car and the car was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh, by way of package policy and premium for covering risk to the driver was also paid. In the written statement filed by respondent No.2-insurance company, it had raised various legal objections and took statutory defences, contending that the claim petition had been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondent No.l-owner of the car. Gurpreet Singh-deceased was himself at fault since the accident had taken place due to his negligence. Therefore, no compensation was payable. Moreover, deceased Gurpreet Singh had stepped into shoes of owner of the vehicle, refuting the remaining assertions, such insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

(3.) On pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: -