RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAMAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimant Ramawati - widow, Ms.Smridhi and Ms.Partigya - minor daughters of Laxman Kumar Gupta, a victim of road side accident had filed a claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against Jai Kishan Aggarwal - owner, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - insurer of Mahindra Maxi Pick-up bearing registration No.HR67-8381 (hereinafter referred to as Mahindra Maxi Pick-up) claiming compensation on account of death of Laxman Kumar Gupta in a road side accident.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioners/claimants, on 8/2/2012, Raj Kumar Chaurasia and Laxman Kumar Gupta were coming from Panipat to Deepak Industrial Corporation Gobind Singh Refinery, Ramsara, District Bhatinda (Punjab) in Mahindra Maxi Pick-up vehicle driven by Laxman Kumar Gupta; that at about 11:30 p.m. when such vehicle reached at Odha, 5-6 kms. ahead of Sirsa, then 3-4 Neel gais (wild animals like deer) suddenly crossed the road; that Laxman Kumar Gupta tried to avoid hitting them and turned the Mahindra Maxi Pick up vehicle towards his right side, in the process, striking rear tyre of canter bearing registration No.UP17D-2904, which was driven on its correct side; that as a result of accident, Laxman Kumar Gupta suffered internal injuries; that both the vehicles were badly damaged; that Laxman Kumar Gupta was shifted to PHC Odha in an ambulance from where, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, however, Laxman Kumar Gupta succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident; that a DDR No.18 dtd. 9/2/2012 was got recorded with Police Station Odha, District Sirsa by Raj Kumar Chaurasia. As such legal representatives of deceased Laxman Kumar Gupta had filed a claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the Act contending that deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of his death; that he was working as a driver with respondent No.1 and his income was Rs.3,300.00 per month; that the claimants were dependent upon his earnings. They craved that a compensation of Rs.10.00 lacs be awarded to them.

(3.) Notice of the claim petition was issued to respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed separate written statement, whereas respondents No.3 and 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dtd. 19/2/2013.