JAGMIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.3.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Civil Misc. Case No. 48 of 1989, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by appellants-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'). Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal are that a claim petition for compensation was filed by the claimants before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 19,75,000, inter alia, stating therein that on 29.10.1988 at 11.30 a.m., Charanjeet Singh, aged about 28 years was proceeding on a bicycle towards Sukhadia Circle, Sri Ganganagar, at that relevant time, a jeep bearing No. RNL 3214 came from behind, which was driven at a great speed, rashly and negligently by its driver, the respondent No. 2 Nagender Singh hit the cyclist from behind. Due to this accident, Charanjeet Singh sustained injuries and became unconscious. He was taken to hospital by PW 2 Ranjeet Singh, PW 3 Baldev Raj, Kishan Lal Soni, Sohan Lal and Subhash Chandra, Charanjeet Singh succumbed to injuries in the hospital next day, i.e., on 30.10.88. It was averred that the said jeep was owned by the respondent No. 1. Report Exh. P/l-A of this occurrence was lodged by PW 2 Ranjeet Singh, son of Kripal Singh with the Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar. After usual investigation, police filed challan Exh. 8-A against the respondent No. 2 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statements, wherein the said accident was denied. The Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are interlinked and relate to the fact that the said jeep No. RNL 3214 hit Charanjeet Singh on 29.10.1988 at about 11.30 a.m. at Sukhadia Circle, Sri Ganganagar. Both these issues were decided against claimants. Issue No. 3 relates to quantum of compensation. The Tribunal held that since the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 have been recorded against the claimants, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Issue No. 3A relates to limitation, which was decided in favour of claimants. On these premises, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as also the record of the Tribunal. I have also scrutinised, scanned and evaluated the evidence produced by the parties before the Tribunal.