REKHA DEVI Vs. RANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I, Sirmaur District, Nahan dated 14.6.2000.

(2.) APPELLANTS Rekha Devi and Girish Kant are the mother and brother of the deceased Ranjeet Singh. Pro forma respondent No. 10, Gian Chand is father of the deceased. Appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the claim petition is: Deceased Rajneesh Kant, on 29.10.96, was walking on the road when, at about 3 p.m., tractor No. HP 17 4056 driven rashly and negligently at a high speed, appeared and hit the deceased. As a result of this accident, deceased received serious injuries and, ultimately, Rajneesh Kant succumbed to the injuries after the accident. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family earning about Rs. 5,000 per month.

(3.) THE claim is resisted by the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in their written statement, have taken up a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as a similar petition regarding this accident filed by the petitioners titled: Gian Chand v. Gurdass Ram had earlier been dismissed. On merits, it was pleaded that deceased tried to board the tractor from the back side as a result of which he could not balance himself and fell down which resulted in serious injuries and, therefore, the accident took place due to the own fault of the deceased. The insurance company in their reply, has also taken the same defence pleading that the present petition was not maintainable as the claimants along with respondent No. 10 had filed a similar petition regarding the same accident in December, 1996 and when they realized that the petition was likely to fail, they got the same dismissed in default at the evidence stage and, therefore, the second petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Insurance company further pleaded that the petitioners are guilty of suppressing true and material facts and on that account too, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is pleaded that the deceased was gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor. It is the further case of the insurance company that in the previous petition filed by the petitioners along with pro forma respondent No. 10 Gian Chand, it was pleaded that deceased at the relevant time, was passenger on the tractor and fell down from the tractor resulting in fatal injuries. The plea of the claimants, it is stated, in the present petition is 'mala fide and false with a view to shift the liability'.