HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. RAJIV CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and more particularly considering the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Minu B. Mehta and another vs. Balkrishna Ramachandra Nayan and another, : 1977 ACJ 118 as also Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, : 2013(9) SCC 65, as pointed out by Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, present appeal only merits rejection. In these decisions the Court has clearly held it incumbent upon the claimants, in a petition filed under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to prove negligence on the part of driver of the bus.

(2.) IN the instant case, claimants being the legal heirs of deceased Beli Ram filed a petition claiming compensation against the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Allegedly, Beli Ram was travelling in a vehicle (No. HP -63 -4268) which met with an accident on 27.6.2007 and as a result thereof he expired.

(3.) WHETHER the petitioners have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition? OPR -2