STATE Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Babu Ram son of Dhoni Chand, resident of Ucha Pind tehsil Billwar on 16 October 1999 fell victim to a vehicular accident at Ponda Billawar. The victim, an employee of Power Development Department, was at the time of accident travelling in a departmental vehicle bearing No. JKQ 8919 driven by Shri Raj Kumar Bhatti, a employee of the department. Shri Babu Ram immediately after the accident, was shifted to Mahanpur Hospital, wherefrom he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital Jammu and finally shifted to Christian Medical College (CMC) Ludhiana. The victim after he was discharged from Ludhiana hospital on 26 October 1999 breathed his last while on way to his native village.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 4 after the tragic demise of Shri Babu Ram filed a petition under Section 161, Motor Vehicles Act for compensation before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kathua. The respondents case was that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the departmental vehicle by its driver, appellant No. 2, and that the offending vehicle having insurance cover from Oriental Insurance Company-respondent No. 5 herein, the company was under legal obligation to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 4. respondents 1 to 4 on the strength of averments made in the claim petition claimed an amount of Rs. 15,65,565/- as compensation on account of death of Shri Babu Ram, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 2 to 4.

(3.) The claim petition was resisted by the appellant herein on the grounds that the accident had taken place not because of rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 2 but due to rash and negligent driving of driver of a Sumo vehicle coming from the opposite direction. Appellant No. 2, it was pleaded, in order to save pedestrians was forced to apply brakes and turn the vehicle to another side; that the vehicle rolled down resulting in serious injuries to the deceased and his death. The appellant also contended that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle without authorization and that as respondents 1 to 4 had received all the compensation payable under rules to a government employee, the respondents 1 to 4 had no right to ask for compensation under Motor Vehicle s Act.