SURJIT KAUR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal impugns the judgment dated 5.4.2002 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the misc. appeal preferred by the respondent insurance company and dismissed the claim petition and the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dausa.

(2.) Claimants-appellants, who were the legal heirs of Darshan Singh filed the claim petition in respect of the death of Darshan Singh who died in an accident on 10.6.90. It was stated in the claim petition that while Darshan Singh was going in truck No. RSB 6633, another truck No. RNG 1944 came from behind and overtook the truck No. RSB 6633. In the process of overtaking, the driver of the said truck without giving any signal suddenly applied brakes. The truck No. RNG 1944 was loaded with iron girders, which were protruding outside the truck pierced into the chest of Darshan Singh who was sitting on khalasi side, as a result of which Darshan Singh died. At the time of death the age of Darshan Singh was 46 years and he was earning Rs. 15,000 per month being a transporter. The respondents filed written statement and on the basis of pleadings of parties as many as six issues were framed. Claimant-appellant Surjit Kaur examined herself as AW 1 and produced three more witnesses in evidence. No witness in rebuttal was, however, examined on behalf of the respondents. Learned Tribunal after considering the material on record awarded Rs. 8,70,000 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent with effect from 13.7.1990. Being aggrieved of the award respondents-driver, vehicle owner and the insurance company filed the appeal before learned single Judge who vide impugned judgment allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim petition of the claimants.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the appellants that the misc. appeal against the award of Claims Tribunal was not maintainable jointly in view of the ratio indicated in Chinnama George v. N.K. Raju, 2000 ACJ 777 (SC). In the said judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation if filed jointly by the owner and insurer was incompetent. It was observed as under (para 6):