SITA DEVI Vs. SANDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant appeal, the appellants have thrown challenge to award dtd. 15/12/2014 (for short "the impugned award") passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udhampur (for short "the Tribunal") in the claim petition titled as "Sandhya Devi and others Vs Shoukat Ali and another."

(2.) Facts emerging from the record reveal that one Mulkh Raj, S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Manpa, Udhampur, aged 42 years (for short "the deceased"), working as a Mazdoor/Central Govt. employee while travelling in a tractor trolley bearing registration No. JK14/3768 (for short "the offending vehicle") sustained injuries on account of fall therefrom at Badali, resulting into multiple injuries to him and later on his death at the Military Hospital, Udhampur, whereupon the claimants-his legal heirs including his wife - Sandhya Devi/respondents 1 to 7 herein filed a claim petition for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988").

(3.) The claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein in the said claim petition impleaded the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Shoukat Ali as a respondent/being respondent 8 herein. The Tribunal after entertaining the claim petition summoned the above named respondent. On 11/5/2011 Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared on behalf of the respondent. On 19/7/2011 an application came to be filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 7 herein for impleadment of the owner of the vehicle, namely, Pritam Sharma, to which the counsel for the respondent/driver did not object to, as a consequence whereof on 23/9/2011 said Pritam Sharma came to be impleaded as a party respondent too in the claim petition and the said newly substituted respondent came to be summoned by the Tribunal. On 8/2/2012, Advocate Sunil Sharma appeared on behalf of the newly substituted respondent-Pritam Sharma and sought time to file objections and also power of attorney on his behalf. The said counsel continued to appear on behalf of the said respondent/owner and appeared in the subsequent proceedings as well as on 28/3/2012 and on 11/6/2012, seeking time to file objections as also the power of attorney.