DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS First Appeal From Order has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 11.7.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Rae Bareli, in Claim Petition No. 198 of 2006, Munni Devi & others vs. Babu Lal @ Barati & others.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as culled out from the record of the appeal, are that husband of the appellant no. 1, Munni Devi, namely, Raju Chaurasia while he was going to have feast at the house of one Deshraj Yadav, met with a fatal accident with a motorcycle no. U. P. 33K/3453 in the evening of 8th July, 2006 in front of the house of E. D. situated in the campus of Dariya Mill. Raju Chaurasia succumbed to injuries on the spot. The said motorcycle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Babu Lal @ Barati Lal very rashly and negligently causing death of Raju Chaurasia. First Information Report of the said accident was lodged by brother of the deceased Raju Chaurasia, namely, Dileep Chaurasia at police station Bhadokhar which was registered as case crime no. 137 of 2006, under sections 279, 338, 304-A I.P.C. and subsequently Charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents. In the instant case, appellant no. 1, Munni Devi is widow of deceased Raju Chaurasia, appellants no. 2 and 3 are parents of the deceased, appellants no. 4 and 6 are minor daughters of the deceased and appellant no.5 is minor son of the deceased, under the guardianship of Smt. Munni Devi being mother. The aforesaid appellants preferred claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The respondent no. 1, Babu Lal @ Barati Lal in his Written Statement, filed in claim petition before the Tribunal, submitted that he is owner of the said motorcycle but he had given his motorcycle to one Sri Ram Sumer of his village for going to his relation on 8th July, 2006 and who had returned his motorcycle on next day. It was further submitted that no accident took place with his motorcycle and at the time of the said accident the motorcycle was insured with respondent no. 3. He was also having valid driving license at the time of accident and his name is not Barati Lal. It was also submitted that the appellants claimed too much amount of compensation and the petition was filed on wrong facts.
(3.) THE respondent no. 2, Ram Sumer reiterated the same facts before the Tribunal. He submitted that no accident took place from his motorcycle and he was having driving license on the alleged date of accident. The respondent no. 3 is Branch Manager of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow who had also filed Written Statement and submitted that the petition was not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellants were not the legal heirs of the deceased and the deceased himself was responsible for his own carelessness. The Company is not responsible for death of the deceased.;