DIVYA LALWANI & ORS Vs. NANDU RAM ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appalled by the part of the impugned award dated 13.11.2010 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 84 of 2007, the appellants/claimants have laid this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988 "). The affections of the appellants as emerging out of memo of appeal are confined to the findings recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road, District Sirohi on issue No. 2.

(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that the appellants/ claimants preferred a claim petition under Sec. 166 read with Sec. 140 of the Act of 1988, inter alia, on the ground that on the fateful day of 13.4.2007 at about 12.30 P.M., when deceased was travelling in his Car Bearing No. RJ-24-CA- 491 from Abu Road to Ajmer on National Highway No. 14, his vehicle collided with Truck No. RJ-19-G-4077 at Ajmer Road just 2 kms. after Bar. As per the version of the appellants, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trick by its driver, first respondent Nandu Ram. The impact of the truck was so grave that the car was dragged for almost 100 meters along with the truck. As per the claim petition, due to the said accident, deceased Govind Ram suffered serious injuries and he has succumbed to the injuries. Besides deceased, Jeewan Lal and Rajesh Kumar Garg also suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. The appellants/claimants while mentioning the age of the deceased as 35 years, highlighted the facts about his occupation by narrating that his monthly income was Rs. 30,000.00 and due to his untimely death, the bereaved family has suffered an irreparable loss. The appellants/claimants quantified the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,85,000.00 under different heads.

(3.) The claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants was contested by the respondents, but no formal return to the claim petition was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The third respondent-insurer filed the reply to the claim petition and admitted the factum of insurance of the offending vehicle with the Company. The rest of the contents of the claim petition were denied by the Insurance Company for want of knowledge. While adverting to the fact regarding rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, the insurer has refuted the allegation that truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, first respondent. According to the version of the insurance Company, the occurrence of the accident was directly attributable to the deceased himself. Besides that the insurer has also made certain other formal objections in the pleadings.