MURARI Vs. DEEPAK TAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of death of Parveen aged about 17 years, a student of ITI, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 6/1/2014 at about 9:15 a.m. on Meham - Beri road near village Balamba statedly on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Swift D'zire car bearing registration No.HR-22H-3011 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) by Deepak Tayal - respondent No.1, the parents of deceased, namely, Sh.Murari aged about 53 years - father and Smt.Krishna aged about 50 years - mother, had brought a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents i.e. Deepak Tayal - driver and owner and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. through its General Manager - insurer of the offending vehicle, claiming compensation with interest and cost.

(2.) As per the case of the claimants on 6/1/2014 at about 8:45 a.m. deceased Parveen along with his friend Ashok was going from village Kelanga to ITI, Meham on a motorcycle having registration No.HR-12L-1746; that the motorcycle was being driven by Parveen with Ashok being a pillion rider; that at about 9:15 a.m., when the motorcycle in question reached near village Balamba on Meham-Beri road, then respondent No.1 - Deepak Tayal while coming on the offending vehicle driving it in a rash and negligent manner from Kishangarh side hit the motorcycle being driven by Parveen, as a result both the riders namely Parveen and Ashok fell down and suffered injuries; that Parveen had suffered multiple serious injuries and his friend Ashok also suffered injuries; a passerby shifted them to Civil Hospital, Meham, where the attending doctor declared Parveen to be brought dead; that Ashok had lodged an FIR No.5 dtd. 6/1/2014 for the offences under Ss. 279, 337, 304-A IPC with Police Station Meham.

(3.) On getting notice, both the respondents appeared and filed written statements contesting the claim petition. In the written statement submitted on behalf of respondent No.1, he denied involvement of the car driven by him in the accident, rather stated that as per FIR, the accident had taken place with an unknown vehicle; that the FIR also did not disclose the type and kind of vehicle. According to the answering respondent, it was in fact a hit and run case. The answering respondent further contended that his car was insured with respondent No.2. Refuting the remaining allegations, the answering respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.