KANTA DEVI Vs. DAYAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT -appellants have preferred this appeal against the award made on October 25, 1983 by Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, making an award of Rs. 10,000/- in their favour against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of petition till date of realization. Respondent No. 3, insurance company, has preferred cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code challenging the award in so far as it has held the insurance company liable to satisfy the award.

(2.) ON July 30,1979, Shashi Kumar son of claimant-appellants was on his way from Khikli Rajol to his village Tremlu in Tehsil Kangra on his bicycle (on Pathankot-Mandi Road), when truck No. PUG 9487, hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle', struck him at Rajol and as a result of this impact, Shashi Kumar received serious injuries on vital parts of his body due to which he succumbed to his injuries within 22 hours in Civil Hospital, Dharamshala. The father and mother of the deceased filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation attributing rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver Budhi Singh, respondent No. 2, alleging that the driver took his vehicle towards wrong side and due to his rash and negligent act, the accident took place. Initially, the claim petition was preferred only against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the owner and driver of the vehicle, respectively, but subsequently, amendment of the petition was sought and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were also impleaded as parties. Respondent No. 4 being the owner of the vehicle prior to its sale by it in favour of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 being insurance company with whom the vehicle had been got insured by respondent No. 4. It was alleged that the deceased was an intelligent and promising youngman, who had been selected by the Industrial Technical Institute, Chamba, for technical training after the deceased had completed his matriculation examination. The deceased was to get stipend during the period of his training and thereafter was to start earning to enable him to support his parents (claimants). All hopes of the claimants were shattered by the untimely death of deceased. It was further alleged that the deceased was the only son of the claimants, the other children being daughters.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 also contested the claim petition denying rash and negligent act on the part of respondent No. 2.