LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-16

SUSHEELA CHAUHAN Vs. RAM SARAN SHARMA

Decided On July 04, 2007
SUSHEELA CHAUHAN Appellant
V/S
RAM SARAN SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 1. 9. 1999 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, shimla in M. A. C. C. No. 83-S/2 of 1994, awarding Rs. 3,50,000 compensation along with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of filing of the petition to the date of payment to the petitioners against all the seven respondents jointly and severally. The appeal has been jointly filed by legal representatives of owner of truck and insurer, respondent No. 7. Ram Parshad, driver, has not joined the appeal and, therefore, he has been impleaded as respondent no. 7 in the above appeal. The parties are referred in the same manner as in the impugned award.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Ram Saran sharma, Chintamani, Krishna, Hem Lata, kanta Devi and Tapsya filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), seeking compensation for the death of prem Raj, who was the son of petitioners ram Saran Sharma and Chintamani, the brother of Krishna and Hem Lata, husband of Kanta Devi and father of Tapsya. He was employed as a cleaner on truck No. HIS 2122 owned by late Jatinder Singh, now represented by his legal representatives susheela Chauhan, Meen, Ambika, ishwati and Pankaj. Ram Parshad was the driver of the truck. The truck was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The truck met with an accident on 25. 11. 1993 near the village Mandhol due to rash and negligent driving of Ram Parshad, driver. Prem Raj suffered injuries including fracture of spinal cord. He remained admitted in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla for about two months. He was referred to p. G. I. , Chandigarh, where he remained an outdoor patient for more than two months. Doctors at P. G. I, told the father of Prem raj that there was no chance of his survival and that he be taken to his village. Prem Raj was shifted to his village where he died on 18. 5. 1994. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased for their livelihood. They claimed Rs. 4,50,000 as compensation by way of petition.

(3.) A common reply was filed by the legal representatives of the owner of the truck and the driver of the truck. It has been admitted that deceased was employed as a cleaner in the truck in question, but denied that the deceased used to be paid rs. 1,500 as salary and in addition Rs. 40 per day for food, etc. It has been denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The pleas of limitation, estoppel have also been taken in the reply. Insurer filed separate reply and took objection that the petition as against insurance company is not maintainable because the vehicle was being driven in breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. There was no valid registration-cum-fitness certificate of the truck. The deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the truck.