SUSHILA DEVI Vs. DHARMENDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 30.8.2003, passed by the learned Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court) Dabra in Claim Case No. 35 of 2003 whereby the Claims Tribunal rejected the claim application of the appellants.

(2.) ON 29.4.2001 around 17.00 hours in the evening deceased Hari Ram Yadav was going on his scooter bearing registration No. MP 07-K 4015 at Jhansi Road Square. In front of the Municipal Council Office, Dabra, tractor bearing registration No. MP 07-HA 0270 dashed the deceased. Deceased received severe injuries in the accident. He was admitted at J.A. Hospital, Gwalior where he died. Report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Dabra, an offence vide Crime No. 152 of 2001 under sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the offending vehicle. Claimants filed claim application before Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 21,55,000. Learned Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor bearing registration No. MP 07-HA 0270. It was insured at the relevant time by non-applicant No. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and in the aforesaid accident deceased died. Learned Claims Tribunal has further held that the claimants are not wife and children of the deceased, hence they are not entitled to compensation.

(3.) OWNER of the tractor Naresh Sharma, DW 1, in his evidence stated that the driver of the tractor had valid driving licence and the tractor was insured by the insurance company. On behalf of insurance company Chandrakanta, DW 2 in her evidence stated that she enquired about the status of Bhuri Bai and found that she is not the wife of Hari Ram Yadav. On the basis of evidence of Chandrakanta and cross-examination of Sushila Devi, the Claims Tribunal has held that Sushila Devi is not the wife of the deceased Hari Ram Yadav. However, apart from the oral evidence the claimants have also filed documentary evidence. Exh. P8 is the copy of the ration card and it has been proved by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Dabra. In the aforesaid document name of Sushila Devi alias Bhuri has been mentioned and name of husband is mentioned as Hari Ram Yadav. Exhs. P9, P10 and P11 are the copies of insurance policies taken by the deceased Hari Ram Yadav. In the aforesaid policies, the name of Sushila Devi has been mentioned as wife of Hari Ram Yadav. Exhs. P12 and P13 are the copies of mark sheet of Manoj and Sushil Yadav. In the aforesaid mark sheets Hari Ram Yadav signed as parent. Voter Identity Card of the claimant is also filed as Exh. P14 in which husband of the claimant is mentioned as Hari. Savings account passbook of the post office Exh. PI7 has been filed and the nomination certificate Exh. P15 is also filed, in which appellant name has been mentioned as wife of Hari Ram Yadav. From the aforesaid documentary evidence and other evidence it is clear that the claimant Sushila Devi alias Bhuri is the wife of Hari Ram Yadav. Tribunal has committed an error of law in relying on the cross-examination of the non-applicant No. 3. There is ample documentary evidence to this effect.