LAWS(RAJ)-2006-2-52

KARAN SINGH Vs. PARAMJEET SINGH

Decided On February 17, 2006
KARAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
PARAMJEET SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.11.1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Phalodi in M.A.C.T. Claim Case No. 153 of 1994, whereby the Tribunal has accepted the claim petition in favour of appellants and awarded Rs. 1,15,000 as compensation and directed the respondent No. 2 (insurance company of truck) to pay compensation along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.5.93 at 2 p.m. near Roopana Jaitana (Devraj Nada) on Lohawat-Phalodi route, an accident took place between a jeep and truck. The jeep was proceeding towards Phalodi, which was being driven by Manoharlal and truck No. RRK 5365 was coming from Phalodi side, which was being driven by Paramjeet Singh at a high speed, rashly and negligently, as a result of which, both vehicles collided with each other. In the said accident Chhail Singh who boarded the jeep No. RJ 19-C 3329 near Jatawas Chauraha fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 19 years old and he was doing masonry work and was earning Rs. 120 per day. The parents of the deceased filed a claim petition for loss of income of Rs. 10,80,000 and other damages under different heads; the total amounting to Rs. 14,90,000.

(3.) A reply was submitted on behalf of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the jeep), respondent No. 5, wherein it was averred that the truck was being driven by Paramjeet Singh at high speed, rashly and negligently, on account of which, accident took place. It was also stated that Manoharlal, respondent No. 3, was not under the employment of Gopi Ram (owner of the jeep), respondent No. 4 and at the time of accident, he was having no valid licence and was plying the jeep as a taxi without permit. Therefore, respondent No. 5 was not liable to pay any compensation amount and prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.