KAUSHALYA Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals [F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1987] are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these arise out of the same accident and common award dated 30.7.1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti districts at Mandi (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), whereby Claim Petition No. 1 of 1986 titled Kaushalya v. Chet Ram, Claim Petition No. 5 of 1986 titled Chit ranjan Dev v. Chet Ram and Claim Petition No. 6 of 1986 titled Chitranjan Dev v. Chet Ram were dismissed, holding that the accident was not caused by respondent Chet Ram, driver of truck No. HPM 1507 belonging to Department of Irrigation and Public Health, Division Mandi. However, the petitioners claimants in the said claim petitions were awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/ for each of the deceased under Section 92 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the unfortunate accident in question had taken place on 16.12.1985 at about 2.10 p.m. as a result of collision of truck No. HPM 1507 and motor cycle No. HPM 1130 coming from opposite directions at Rani Ki Bain on Sundernagar Mandi National Highway. Deceased Jagdish was driving the said motor cycle and deceased Prithi Pal and his wife Sikandra Devi were pillion riders, who died on the spot. Kaushalya, widow, Kishore Kumar, son and Chet Ram, father of deceased Jagdish filed Claim Petition No. 1 of 1986 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ from the respondents alleging that on the relevant time and date "deceased Jagdish was coming from Bhan grotu towards Mandi town on his left side on Sundernagar Mandi National Highway on motor cycle No. HPM 1130 in slow, moderate speed, when truck No. HPM 1507 owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 collided with the aforesaid motor cycle (head on collision) killing the driver and pillion riders Prithi Pal and Sikandra Devi. All the three riding on the motor cycle died on the spot. The motor cycle was damaged in totality."

(3.) SEPARATE replies were filed by Chet Ram and other respondents in each claim petition. But their reply to para No. 24 of the claim petitions was identical. It was: