LAWS(P&H)-1971-11-8

BRIJ LAL KHERA Vs. RAKSHA DEVI AND ANR.

Decided On November 16, 1971
Brij Lal Khera Appellant
V/S
Raksha Devi And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAPIL Dev while going on his bicycle in Nangal Township was bit by truck No. PNE -5184, which was driven by Som Nath. As a result of this accident he lost his life. Thereupon his widow Mrs. Raksha Devi made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh. The Tribunal accepted her application with costs and awarded Rs. 36,000/ - as compensation against Brij Lal Khera, the owner of the truck. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, with whom the truck was insured, was held to be liable to the extent of Rs. 20,000/ - only and the costs of the proceedings. This award of the Tribunal, dated 27th March, 1967, has, however, been modified in appeal by a learned Single Judge of this Court, who not only reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 24,000/ -but also absolved the Insurance Company of all liability in view of the provisions of Section 96(2)(d)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the finding that Som Nath, because of whose negligence the accident occurred, was not duly authorised to drive the truck. Against this judgment dated 27th February, 1970, cross -appeals have been preferred by the truck owner Brij Lal Khera and Smt. Raksha Devi, widow of the victim of the accident. In L.P.A. 214 of 1970 Brij Lal Khera has disputed the findings that he was the owner of the truck and that the Insurance Company was not liable. In L.P.A. 336 of 1970 Raksha Devi has prayed for the enhancement of the compensation to Rs. 36,000/ -, the amount that was awarded to her by the Tribunal, while in L.P.A. 337 of 1970, she has pressed her claim against the Insurance Company as well.

(2.) AT the time of the arguments, however, Mr. Bhagat Singh Chawla, appearing for Mrs. Raksha Devi, stated before us that he was not pressing the claim for enhancement of compensation. L.P.A. 336 of 1970 has thus to be dismissed.

(3.) THOUGH in the grounds of appeal the finding with regard to the ownership of the truck has been disputed, this plea has not been pressed before us and even otherwise we find that there is abundant material to support it.