LAWS(HPH)-2009-3-7

ANITA ABROL Vs. RISHI CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD

Decided On March 30, 2009
ANITA ABROL Appellant
V/S
RISHI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present F.A.O. has been directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi in Claim Petition No. 37 of 1999; decided on 28.9.2004.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this F.A.O. are that on 15.5.1998, deceased Kewal Kumar left his native village Kanaid. He was travelling in Maruti van bearing No. DL 2-CJ 1834. When it reached at Nanhera Mor, G.T. Road, Am- bala at about 1.45 p.m., a bus bearing No. HR 37-2003 came from opposite side and dashed against the van. The van was being driven by the deceased. Kewal Kumar received multiple injuries and he died in the hospital. Claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,000. The claim petition was resisted/contested by the respondents. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 (driver Narinder Kumar). The stand of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 3, was that the accident has taken place due to rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased. The respondent No. 3 has also taken a stand that respondent No. 3 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In nutshell, the reply of respondent No. 3 was that it was not liable to indemnify the claimants. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed separate replies. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 11,16,000 to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The award was announced on 28.9.2004. However, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has exonerated respondent No. 3, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The liability was fastened only on respondent No. 1 (owner).