ANJU DHIMAN Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants and one Bishan Dass were the claimants before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III, Kanghra at Dharamshala in M.A.C.P. No.64 -J/1999 decided on 12.3.2004 awarding Rs.5,04,000/ - compensation alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization inclusive of the amount, if any, paid to appellants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ˜Act) as per shares mentioned in the operative part of the impugned award.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the appellants was that Mohinder Pal Dhiman was waiting for a bus at old bus stand, Una alongwith Gurahcaran Singh a driver in his Department on 4.2.1999 as they were to go to Rest House, Una. The bus bearing registration No.HP -20 -5512 owned by respondent No.1 which was being driven by respondent No.2 came to the bus stand. Mohindler Pal Dhiman was in the process of boarding the bus but respondent No.2 rashly and negligent set the bus in motion, as a result of which Mohinder Pal Dhiman fell down on the ground and the rear left wheels of the bus crushed his waist. The bus was stopped by respondent No.2 on hearing the shouts raised by Gudcharan Singh who was not able to board the bus. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Mohinder Pal Dhiman was taken to Government Hospital, Una but he died in the hospital on the same day. FIR No.84 was registered at Police Station, Una on 4.2.1999. The deceased was working as Excise and Taxation Inspector at Una and was drawing Rs.7,545/ - salary per month. The appellants filed petition claiming Rs. 15.00 lac compensation from the respondents alongwith 18% interest from the date of accident. The appellants being widow, children, mother and unmarried sister of the deceased were dependent on the deceased. Bishan Dass father of the deceased who joined the appellant in filing claim petition died on 13.5.2004 and his name was deleted.

(3.) THE respondent No.3 had also contested the petition by filing a reply and took preliminary objections that driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The vehicle No.HP -20 - 5512 was not insured with respondent No.3. The deceased was in the proceeds of board in the bus, the risk is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy, if any. On merits, respondent No.3 denied the claim of the appellants. The appellants filed a rejoinder and denied the stand of respondents No.1 and 2. The learned tribunal had framed the following issues: -