KARAM SINGH Vs. BEAS SATLUJ LINK PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a sad commentary. The claimants are the father (72), young widow and the son of the deceased, Hakam Singh, who died in a motor accident on 11.5.1975. He was the only bread-earner of the family and was working as a carpenter in Beas Satluj Link Project, Sundernagar at the time of the accident. By the death of Hakam Singh, the family has been rendered totally helpless and without any source of income.

(2.) A claim petition was moved on 10.11.1975 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, against the Beas Satluj Link Project, Sundernagar, through the Chief Engineer, Sundernagar Township and against Karam Singh, driver of truck No. RL 267. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 22.12.1981 on the ground that no proper respondent was on the record. The Tribunal has observed that in the beginning, the claimants had arrayed the Executive Engineer, Beas Satluj Link Project, Bharari Tunnelling Division, Sundernagar, as respondent and later on Superintending Engineer (Admn.) B.S.L. Project, was made the respondent. These respondents, according to this order, did not appear to have contested the application on the ground that the truck did not belong to them and the same belonged to the Beas Satluj Link Project. The claimants were asked to bring the proper respondents on the record and instead of doing so, they amended the petition on 20.11.1981 and the Superintending Engineer, B.S.L. Project and the driver of the truck were made respondents. Thereafter, by another application dated 22.12.1981, the Chief Engineer, B.S.L. Project, Sundernagar, General Manager, Beas Project, Talwara and Secretary, Beas Construction Board, New Delhi, were sought to be made as respondents. In these circumstances, the Tribunal observed as follows:

(3.) MR . K.S. Patyal, who appears for the appellants, submits that the claimants are absolutely poor rustic villagers and they have lost every strength to pursue this matter after fourteen years for want of money. In these circumstances, he urges that in view of the fact that the accident had taken place and the deceased died in this accident and the truck driven by Karam Singh, respondent, was owned by B.S.L. Project, some compensation by invoking the principles of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, be allowed to the claimants at this stage.