LAWS(RAJ)-2006-4-33

PRAKASH KAUR Vs. KULVINDRA SINGH

Decided On April 27, 2006
PRAKASH KAUR Appellant
V/S
KULVINDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 4. 12. 1998 passed by the judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sri Ganganagar in M. A. C. T. Claim Case no. 75 of 1996 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that appellants' son, Milkiyat Singh, was cleaner on truck No. RJ 13-G 1755 and the said truck was going to Ambala (Punjab) being driven by the driver, one sukhveer Singh. On 4. 9. 1995, when the truck reached at village Ghinola (Punjab), at that time another truck No. RRC 7166 also reached there, which was being driven by Kulvindra Singh, respondent No. 1. Both the trucks stayed there, tyre of truck no. RRC 7166 was to be replaced. Kulvindra Singh, his cleaner and Milkiyat Singh started to replace the tyre of the back wheel of truck No. RRC 7166. When they were replacing the tyre, the jack of the truck slipped as the land was wet due to rain, as a result of which, the truck turned turtle and Milkiyat Singh was caught beneath the truck and he sustained grievous injuries resulting in his death. It was stated in the claim petition that incident took place due to negligence of Kulvindra Singh. At the time of the incident, the deceased was aged 25 years and was earning Rs. 2,500 per month. Due to the untimely death, the claimants-appellants suffered a loss. The claimants-appellants have been deprived from the income of their son, therefore, they preferred a claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,21,000 under different heads.

(3.) IN reply to the claim petition, respondent No. 1, Kulvindra Singh, driver of truck No. RRC 7166 admitted the incident in which Milkiyat Singh died but stated that he did not instruct Milkiyat Singh to replace the tyre of the back wheel. He was not responsible to pay compensation to the claimants. The deceased was wholly responsible for his own act of negligence. He also stated that it was not an accident but was a casual incident. He prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed.