ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 30th June, 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.43 of 2010, titled as Sumitra Devi and others versus Raj Kumar Sharma and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,86,000/- stands awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No.1 to 5 herein), and against the appellant, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, (for short, the impugned award). Brief facts:

(2.) On 9th June, 2010, one Mulkh Raj was traveling in a vehicle bearing registration No.JK-02-8349, which was being driven by its driver, namely, Surmi rashly and negligently. The said vehicle met with an accident at Kurali Nallah in District Chamba, H.P., as a result of which Mulkh Raj sustained injuries leading to his immediate death. It was averred that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle to fetch water for laying the lintel of the house of his uncle. Thus, the claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim petition.

(3.) During the pendency of the Claim Petition, it appears that the claimants had laid a motion for leave to amend the claim petition in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, which was granted and the amended petition was filed. But, inadvertently, the requisite amendment was not carried out in the amended petition and again permission was granted and the amended petition was filed.