PHOOL SINGH Vs. VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant, father of deceased-Rakesh Kumar, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 08.08.2011 passed in MACT case No.51 of 2010 titled as Phool Singh Vs. Virender Singh and others on account of death of Rakesh Kumar due to injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident which took place on 25.03.2010.

(2.) The claimant filed the above-said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V.Act') on the averments that on 25.03.2010 when Rakesh Kumar was coming on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-08C-6697 with Vikram and Tarsem as pillion riders from village Kalayat to village Barsikiri Kalan, Mahindra Pick-up bearing registration No.HR-64-3629, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit their motorcycle by coming on the wrong side due to which they fell down and suffered injuries. Rakesh Kumar succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident on his way to the hospital. FIR No.39 dated 25.03.2010 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kalayat, District Kaithal. The deceased was aged about 22 years and was earning Rs.5,157/-. While claiming himself to be dependent and legal representative of the deceased, the claimant-father of the deceased sought award of compensation with costs and interest against the respondents No.1 to 3.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondents. In their written statement, the respondents No.1 and 2 denied the accident and their liability. In its written statement, the respondent No.3 took the objections as to respondent No.1 not having valid and effective driving licence, respondent No.2 not having valid permit and the claim petition having been filed by the claimant in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 also controverted the averments made in the petition and denied its liability.