SURESH KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. JOG RAJ AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned award dated 30.4.2012, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, in MAC Petition No. 59-P/2006, whereby learned tribunal below, while holding the respondents/claimants No. 1 to 3, (herein after referred to as claimants) , entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,10, 000/-, held the present appellant i.e owner of the vehicle, liable to pay sum of Rs. 5,82, 000/- alongwith 7.5 % p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till its realization, appellant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for setting aside the aforesaid impugned award.

(2.) For having bird's eye view, facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 16 lacs on account of death of Banti, who at that relevant time, was serving in Indian Army. Claimants, who claim themselves to be dependent upon deceased Banti, stated before the tribunal below that deceased, who was 24 years of age at that relevant time, was earning Rs. 8,000/-p.a. Allegedly, on 6.2006, Banti, while coming on Scooter met with an accident with a truck bearing No. PB-07-A-9237, being driven by Yashbir Pal, who has since expired. Claimants alleged that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid driver and as such, they are entitled to be compensated.

(3.) Present appellant, who was respondent No.1, before the Tribunal below, refuted the aforesaid claim of the claimants and claimed that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased and as such, claimants are not entitled to compensation as claimed in the petition. Respondent Insurance Company refuted the claim of the claimants on the ground that driver of offending truck was not having valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle and as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Insurance company also submitted before the learned tribunal below that accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the said scooter. On merits, insurance company also denied that deceased, at that relevant time, was working in Indian Army and was earning income @ Rs. 8,000/-.