GOPAL THAKUR Vs. URMILA MAHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dated 25th May, 2001 passed by learned motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu in claim Petition No. 3/2000 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,80,000/-to the claimants on account of death of Prem singh in an accident along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The parties in this judgment are referred in the same manner as referred in the impugned award. The award amount has been ordered to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that Prem Singh husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4 and son of petitioner No. 5 was hit by Scooter at Dhalpur chowk, Kullu on 29th November, 1999. The petitioners filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 28 lacs on account of death of Prem singh. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 Gopal Thakur was driving the Scooter at the relevant time. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Gopal Thakur. The respondent no. 2 Liladhar Thakur is the owner of the scooter and respondent No. 3 New India assurance Company is the insurer of the scooter.

(2.) THE deceased Prem Singh was employed as Horticulture Development officer, Kullu Block. On 29th November, 1999 when Prem Singh had virtually crossed the road the Scooter with no number plate but bearing Engine No. 398059 Chasis No. CIMF 393953 came from Bus Stand side in a high speed and negligent manner. The Scooter was being driven by respondent No. 1 and it struck against Prem Singh causing head injury. Prem Singh was taken to District hospital, Kullu where he died on 30th november, 1999. The deceased at the time of death was getting Rs. 15,881 /- salary and he was also additionally earning Rs. 3,000/-from agriculture. The petitioners were totally dependent upon his income. On these facts, the claim petition was filed.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 driver filed reply and admitted the accident but denied that he was driving the Scooter rashly and negligently. According to him, the deceased died due to his own negligence. The deceased was in haste to catch abus, he started running across the road and in that process he struck with the middle portion of the body of the scooter. According to him, the petitioners did not suffer any financial loss. The compensation claimed is excessive.