JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Shri Rajinder Parshad, husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2 & 3, lost his life in a tragic accident on 20th Feb. 2008 at about 9.00 PM, when he, while standing near out gate of General Bus Stand, B.C.Road, Jammu, was hit by a Santro Car bearing Registration No.JK02Q-0887, plied by Shri Ranjit Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of Marh Bagh Tehsil & District Jammu ' respondent no.5 herein. Deceased's wife, daughter and son, sometime after the accident, laid a claim petition before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for brevity 'Tribunal'), claiming compensation of Rs.37.50 Lacs.
(2.)Claim Petition was not contested by driver of offending vehicle (respondent no.5 here), as a result whereof, he was set ex parte by Tribunal. Though initially, claim petition was not opposed by owner of offending vehicle (respondent no.4 here), but, later, on his motion,ex parte award passed against him on 19th Dec. 2009, was set aside and he was permitted to oppose claim petition. M/s Jammu Motors Private Limited ' appellant here, was at the instance of respondent no.4 impleaded as party respondent in claim petition as according to respondent no.4, the vehicle on 18th Feb. 2008 was handed over to M/s Jammu Motors Private Limited for its repairs, which was delivered to owner (respondent no.4), after effecting repairs to it, on 24th/25th of Feb. 2008. Both owner of vehicle (respondent no.4 here) and appellant filed their objections to claim petition.
(3.)Learned Tribunal, on perusal of pleadings, settled following issues:
(1) Whether an accident occurred on 20.02.2008 near outer gate of General Bus Stand B.C.Road, Jammu, by rash and negligent driving of offending Vehicle No.JK02Q-887 by its driver respondent no.1, as a result of which deceased Rajinder Parshad suffered fatal injuries" OPP
(2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom" OPP
(3) Whether offending vehicle during the period of accident was under the control of respondent No.3, and whether respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time as an employee of respondent no.3" If so, to what effect" OPR-2
(4) Relief.