VINOD KUMAR Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/Owner of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant "), under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "MV Act "), against the award dtd. 4/8/2023, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, in Claim Petition No.17 of 2014, with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 9 herein) filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of MV Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.20,70,000.00 on account of death of Shri Murari Lal, being his Class-I legal heirs. It was averred by the petitioners that on 30/6/2008, when Murari Lal was waiting for a bus to Mandi, alongwith other colleagues, at village Nagchala, then at about

(3.) :30 PM, a car (Tavera) bearing registration No.PB-01R-4551 came from Sundernagar side, which was being driven by respondent No.3 (respondent No.11 herein) in a rash and negligent manner, hit the same against Murari Lal on the extreme corner of the road, as a result of which, he suffered multiple injuries, including head injury and he became unconscious at the spot. He was taken to Harihar Hospital, Gutkar, from where he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where he remained admitted upto 7/7/2008 and he also remained under treatment in PGI Chandigarh regarding MRI. It was further averred that due to the head injury, Murari Lal lost his memories and he remained under continuous treatment in different hospitals and ultimately, he died on 27/6/2011. The petitioners submitted that they spent more than Rs.3,00,000.00 on the treatment of the deceased. 3. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, the deceased was 54 years old and he was working as a regular Class-IV employee in the Forest Department and he was also looking after and managing the entire household and agricultural business and his monthly income was more than Rs.20,000.00 from all sources. Hence, the petitioners sought a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000.00.