NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment award dated 11.5.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum -3rd Addl. District Judge, Chaibasa in Compensation Case No. 54 of 1990 is the subject matter of this appeal.

(2.) ONE Arvind Kumar while returning from Rajendra Vidyalaya at Sakchi to his residence at Adityapur on 16.3.1990 at about 9.45 a.m. on Rajdoot Motor Cycle No. BEP -678 met with an accident due to dash by a truck No. BHX -7324 belonging to the respondent No. 3 being driven by the respondent No. 4. Arvind Kumar was driving the motor cycle while two others namely, Sumeet Kumar and Amit Kumari were pillion riders. All of them fell down from the motor cycle and sustained serious injuries. All the three injured were removed to Tata Main Hospital, but Arvind Kumar succumbed to his injuries within 10 -15 minutes of his reaching to hospital and some how Amit Kumari and Sumeet survived The driver of the truck No. BHX -7324 fled away with the truck. A police case was registered against the driver and owner of the truck and it was found that the truck was insured with the appellant, namely, M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Jamshedpur under Policy No. 31520101106396. At the time of occurrence, deceased Arvind Kumar was serving in TAYO Company Jamshedpur as a Technical trainee and he was getting Rs. 750/ - per month in the first year of his training. It is further alleged that in the second year of training he would have received Rs. 1000/ - per month and after completion of the training he would have been absorbed in the TAYO Company with a lucrative career and he would have starting his service at a salary of Rs. 2500/ - per month with all other facilities. It is also stated that out of the allowance of Rs. 750/ - per month, the deceased was contributing Rs. 500/ - per month to the claimants, who were none but the father and mother of the deceased, who was unmarried at the time of accident.

(3.) AT the time of trial, owner of the vehicle did not contest and it was solely contested by the Insurance Company, the appellant. From the side of the claimants, several witnesses have been examined including the father of the deceased and Summet Kumar, one of the eye witness of the occurrence, who was a pillion rider in the motor cycle at the time of occurrence. None of the Opposite parties adduced evidence to support their case that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driving of the motor cycle.