J. AND K. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. M.A.C.T.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
J. And K. State Road Transport
Click here to view full judgement.
A.S.ANAND, C.J. -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against all award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sfinagar, dated 29-7-1980, awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to respondent No. 2 in a claim petition filed against the appellant and respondent No.3 arising out of a vehicular accident in which Mohd. Yaqoob, aged 11 years, the son of respondent No. 2, lost his fife. The appeal has been preferred by the Road Transport Corporation of J&K State. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 3 d ed and since the award was not against him, vide order of the court dated 1-8-1985, his name was deleted from the array of the respondents.
(2.) ON 18-9-1976, an accident took place in village Larkipora, tehsil Doru, District Anantnag, in which Mohd. Yaqoob, son of respondent No. 2, was killed The offending vehicle No. JKY 751 was owned by the appellant J&K State Road Transport Corporation and respondent No. 3 (since dead) was its driver. Respondent No 2 filed a claim petition claiming an amount of Rs. 1,55,100/- as compensation. The claim pstition was resisted and both the owner and the driver filed their written objections in which, inter alia, the factum of the accident was denied but it was pleaded in the alternative that the accident, in mv case, had not occurred due to any rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 3 and had been caused due to mechanical defect which was beyond the control of respondent No. 3. The following issues were raised in the case:
(1) Was the accident caused because of the rash and negligent act of the non-applicant No. 1 ? O.P. Applicant. (2) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to how much compensation the applicant is entitled and from whom and in what proportion ? O.P. Applicant. (3) Relief?
The claimant, respondent No. 2 examined Gul Mohd. Ganai, Ghulam Ahmad Dar, Gulam Ahmad Rather, Gulam Mohd. Kutey and Gani Rather besides appearing in the witness box himself. The respondents to the claim petition, on the other hand, examined Sarup Narian Kak and Ghulam Mohd. Ganai, respondent No. 3, the driver of the offending vehicle, also appeared as his own witness.
(3.) THE fact that the accident took place on the date and the time alleged in the claim petition at Larkipora has not only been deposed to by the witness produced on behalf of the claimant but has also been admitted by respondent No. 3, the driver of the offending vehicle himself in his own deposition. Ghulam Mohd. Ganai, a witness of the respondent, also admitted the factum of the accident. Meekly, the witness of the contesting respondents, however, feigned ignorance as to whether the deceased had been hit and injured in the accident. It has, however, been deposed to by both the witnesses of the respondents and respondent No. 3 himself that the accident had been caused because of the bursting of one of the tyres of the offending vehicle No. JKY 751.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.