Decided on April 24,1997

GIANO DEVI Appellant
GIAN SINGH Respondents


ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.)WE propose to dispose of these three appeals by a common judgment as they have arisen out of the same accident. F.A.O. No. 166 of 1988 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement, whereas F.A.O. No. 178 of 1988 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company, Shimla against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2), Shimla on the plea that it is not liable for payment of compensation awarded under the said award. F.A.O. No. 170 of 1988 has also been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the award passed by the aforesaid Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2), Shimla in M.A.C.T. Case No. 14 S/2 of 1988.
(2.)BRIEF facts of these appeals need to be given in order to properly appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
In this case a claim petition came to be filed by Subhadra Devi widow, Kusum Lata, Reena Kumari, minor daughters, Sunil Kumar, minor son, Manohar Singh and Gopi, parents respectively of the late Mangat Ram, who according to these claimants had died in a motor vehicle accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. This motor accident had taken place on 30.8.1987 at 7.30 p.m. near Bagharu Nala in the jurisdiction of police station Theog. Vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Krishan Dutt, late driver of vehicle bearing registration No. HPS 5891 belonging to Gian Singh respondent. It is not in dispute that this vehicle stood insured with appellant insurance company. F.I.R. in this case was registered, copy whereof has been proved on record vide Exh. PA and copy of post mortem report of deceased Mangat Ram has also been proved on record as Exh. PB. Insurance company placed reliance on a copy of insurance policy Exh. R 1, even otherwise there is no dispute between the parties regarding the vehicle being insured with the appellant insurance company. After completion of the trial, the Tribunal below has passed award in the sum of Rs. 92,000 in all and has apportioned this amount in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 6, claimants, namely, Rs. 22,000/ to the widow, Rs. 20,000/ each to two daughters and one son of the deceased and Rs. 5,000/ to each of the parents. This award of the Tribunal below has been questioned by the insurance company in the present appeal.

(3.)MR . K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the award passed against his client is not sustainable and he made a feeble attempt to further rake up the question that the deceased was not engaged as a labourer by the owner as held by the Tribunal below and thus he has further attempted to urge that the award against his client is liable to be set aside. All these contentions were controverted by Mr. Ashok Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.