HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 12 -7 -1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua in a claim petition titled as
Maya Devi & others Vs Lalman and others (which shall be hereinafter
referred to as impugned order) whereby and where -under compensation to
the tune of Rs. 87,600/ - with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of institution of the claim petition till its realization come
to be granted in favour of the claims against the owner of the offending
(2.) IT is useful to refer respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as the claimants; appellant as insured; respondent No. 4 as insurer and
respondent No. 5 as driver of the offending vehicle, hereinafter.
(3.) IT appears that the claimants have been dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar and thereby stand deprived of the benefit of
social legislation for pretty long time. The delay crept in has not only
deprived the claimants from the benefit of social legislation but has
defeated the aim and object of the social legislation. The purpose, aim
and object of granting compensation is to save the claimants/victims from
starvation, vagrancy, destitution and other social evils. In order to
achieve the said purpose, the Courts are under legal obligation to decide
such matters without delay. But the case in hand speaks of really a
terrible commentary, disclosing how the case came to be dealt with.
It is useful to give the brief resume of the facts of the case herein.
Claimants filed a claim petition on 29 -1 -1986 for awarding
compensation. Same came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated
22 -12 -1990. Claimants feeling aggrieved of the said award preferred an appeal before this Court which came to be allowed vide order dated
9 -3 -1992, and there -after Tribunal passed another order vide judgment dated 22 -12 -1992 which was allowed vide judgment dated 9 -2 -1998 passed by
this Court. The case came to be remanded back to the Tribunal.
Appellant -owner came to be arrayed as party respondent. There -after on
the pleadings of the parties following issues came to be framed: -
1. Whether on 10 -11 -1985 respondent No.1 who was the owner of the Tractor No. 6238 and driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at
Chadwal More, on Jammu Pathankote Road, knocked down the deceased Ram Lal
resulted his death on spot? OPP
2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to how much claim of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom ? OPP
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.