SURAJMAL Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. appeal under Sec. 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 ('Act') has been preferred by the appellants/claimants impugning the judgment dtd. 25/9/2002 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh ('Tribunal') in MAC Case No. (38) (138/1995), whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,66,000.00 on account of death of Khemraj, brother of appellants No.1 to 3 and son of claimant No.3, who lost his life in the accident, which took place on 31/1/1995. In the claim petition, on 31/1/1995 while deceased Khem Raj while boarding in Tractor/Trolley (RJ-09-R-1187 and RJ-09-R-1177) was going from Siyakhedi to Inton-Ka-Talab, then at about 04:00 pm the said tractor reached near Hotel, the driver of the Tractor/Trolley lost his control over the vehicle, as a result of which the trolley turned turtle and Khemraj was crushed under the trolley and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the non-claimants No.2 and 3 were the owner and non-claimant No.1 was plying the tractor/trolley under the instructions and employment of non-claimants No.2 and 3. At the time of accident, deceased Khem Raj was studying in 8th standard. During pendency of the claim petition, father of deceased Sh. Hakra Meena, who was one of the claimants, expired and thereafter the claim petition was pursued by the appellants herein.

(3.) Despite service of the summons of the claim petition, nobody appeared on behalf of non-claimant No.1/driver. On behalf of non-claimants No.2 and 3, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts averred in the claim petition. In the reply it was stated that no accident had taken on the date and time mentioned in the claim petition. It was stated that in fact the deceased himself was negligent, inasmuch as the deceased while climbing in the trolley sustained injuries and died. It was further stated in the reply that prior to filing the claim petition, the claimants obtained compensation from the owner. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be rejected.