UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUNAYANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act by the above -named opposite party No. 2 -appellant against the judgment and award dated 5.7.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, in Claim Case No. 73 of 1991 granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,84,952.00 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be paid within 30 days from the date of award; in default, the rate of interest had been increased to 18% per annum from the date of filing Of the claim case up to the date of realisation. The whole amount of compensation has been asked to be paid by the appellant -Insurance Company as the offending truck was insured with the appellant -Insurance Company.

(2.) THE facts of the case run in a very narrow compass: Sashi Bhushan Prasad Singh was the husband of Claimant No. 1 Smt. Sunayana Devi and the father of the minor son and daughter who have also joined as claimants in the guardianship of their mother, claimant No. 1. The deceased was travelling in a Trekker bearing registration No. BR 21. -T -4515 along with his wife claimant No. 1 on the date of accident, i.e. on 8.2.1991 and at the place of occurrence, truck No. BHM 5149 owned by opposite party No. 1 being insured with opposite party No. 2 (the appellant in this appeal) came from towards Hazaribagh side in highly excessive and uncontrollable speed. Due to careless and negligent driving, it dashed against the Trekker, as a result of which, the husband of the claimant died. It was further stated that the Trekker in which the deceased and claimant No. 1 were traveling was in a dead slow speed and it attempted to save it from the truck in question and also took side and gone to the left kacha flank but, even then, the negligent truck driver dashed against the trekker causing accident. The deceased was taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, from where he was removed to Rajendra Medical College Hospital, Ranchi, but ultimately died there on 13.2.1991. The owner of the trekker was also made party but the insurer of the trekker was not made party and practically the owner of the trekker filed written statement but did not contest the case. The owner of the truck had filed joint written statement with the Insurance Company (opposite party No. 2) and it was contended that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the trekker and the truck was not in fault. The Insurance Company also stated that the trekker was being driven by a person who had no proper driving licence and the same was with the truck also.

(3.) FROM the side of the claimant, several witnesses have been examined and documents have also been produced. Soon after the accident, the Khalasi of the truck filed a First Information Report to the effect that the accident was caused due to rash and neligent driving of the trekker. The claimant No. 1 had also filed another complaint petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was marked Ext. 8 and therein it was stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. In support of that complaint petition, the complainant was examined before the Chief Judicial Magistrate also and she has supported about the negligence of the truck alone due to which accident was caused. She has also deposed in the present claim case supporting her claim that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and, as such, the truck in question was held to be the offending vehicle and not the trekker.