Decided on February 07,1995

RAM RATI Respondents


C.M. Nayar, J. - (1.)The present judgment will dispose of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, FAO No. 6 of 1989 and cross objections (C.M.No.552 of 89) on behalf of the respondents/claimants against the award dated October 3, 1988, passed by Shri V.B.Gupta, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi.
(2.)The respondents/claimants filed Claim Petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) for compensation of Rs.12 lakhs and for Rs.15,000.00 under Section 92-A of the Act. The respondents/claimants are the widow of the deceased Jai Prakash Tyagi, two daughters, one son and parents. The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that one daughter, Kumari Adesh has since expired on July 21, 1989.
(3.)The case of the respondents/claimants is that deceased Jai Prakash Tyagi died in an accident, which took place on October 7, 1982 at about 5.45 P.M. The deceased was going on a two wheeler scooter No. DHP- 7070 as a pillion rider and this scooter was being driven by Shri Pavan Kumar and when it reached near village Sarai Kale Khan, Hazarat Nizamuddin, bus bearing No.DLP 6218 driven by respondent no.7, Surat Singh, came from behind at a very fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the scooter without giving any horn or signal. The impact of the accident was so great that Jai Prakash Tyagi succumbed to injuries on the spot and it is stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.7, Surat Singh. The deceased was a young man, aged about 35 years and was in good health. He was earning Rs.13,000.00 per annum from his Garment business, Rs.8,000.00 per annum from the dairy farm, which he was running and was also having an income of Rs.15,000.00 per annum from agricultural business. The monthly income of the deceased was, accordingly, Rs.3,000.00 per month and he was paying income tax. The vehicle was owned by respondent no.8 and insured with the appellant, United India Insurance Co. ltd. The ownership of the vehicle was admitted and it was also admitted that the same was insured with the appellant company. It was pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash, negligent and careless driving of the scooter driven by Pawan Kumar, who had no control on his vehicle and since the tyre of the two wheeler scooter was burst, the said scooter overturned and the pillion rider sustained head injuries on account of fall on the mettlled road. The appellant Insurance Company admitted the factum of the insurance policy. However, it was pleaded that the liability of the company was limited to the extent of Rs.50,000.00 only.

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