CHANDER KANTA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants Chander Kanta and others against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, vide which they were granted compensation to the tune of Rs 75,264/- together with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The liability was fixed as joint and several. Out of the compensation, Rs. 5,000.00 each was directed to be paid to appellant Nos.2 to 6 and the remaining amount was directed to b paid to Chander Kanta, widow of Gurdev Singh. The facts as alleged in the claim petition are that on 24/6/1985 Gurdev Singh and Satbir Singh were going on motor-cycle No.HRR-1950 from Bahadurgarh to Rohtak. On the way both stayed in village Rohar with their relation and when they were onward journey to Rohtak on the same motor-cycle which was being driven by Gurdev Singh deceased, Satbir Singh deceased was sitting on the pillion seat. When the motor cycle reached the western end of village Rohar on G.T.Road, truck No. RSC 1625, being driven by Vijay Singh rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit the motor-cycle on its back side, as a result of which both Gurdev Singh and Satbir Singh fell down ahead of the motor-cycle and were crushed under the wheels of the truck. Gurdev Singh died at the spot whereas Satbir Singh was taken to the hospital, where he expired at 6.20 PM on the same day. On the basis of statement of Mehtab Singh, a criminal case was registered against Vijay Singh and challan was filed under Section 304- A, I.P.C.

(2.) It was the case of the claimants that Gurdev Singh was aged about 33 years and was employed in Luxmi Precision Screws, Hisar Road, Rohtak as Setter-cum- Operator, on a monthly salary of Rs.917.4o0 Ps. It was claimed by the claimants that besides this, he used to do the work of photography in his spare time and used to earn Rs. 400-500 per month from this work. Therefore, it was claimed that the income of Shri Gurdev Singh was Rs. 1400.00 per month. On this basis, a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs was claimed.

(3.) The claim was contested by the respondents. In his written statement filed by respondent No.1, all the allegations of the claimant-appellants were denied. He took a stand that the truck was not involved in the said accident. However, Vijay Singh, driver of the truck, in his written statement, admitted that the accident had taken place, but his stand was that his truck was going to Rohtak at a normal speed and when it reached near village Rohar, motor-cycle No. HRR 1950 came from the side of Rohar at a very high speed and struck his truck and on this basis it was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cyclist. The insurance company admitted that the truck was insured, but took a stand that its liability was limited to Rs.1,50,000.00 only.