K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Agra, dated August 12, 1975, awarding a sum of Rs. 27,000 as compensation to be paid by the appellant insurance company and M/s. New Verma Transport Co., the owner of the vehicle.
(2.) On May 23, 1969, at about 4.30 p.m. the deceased, Manohar Lal, was coming on cycle from Etmandaula side to Balanganj and, while he was, passing the old Jamuna Bridge at Agra, the truck No. UFA 8526 owned by M/s. New Verma Transport Co; dashed against Sri Manohar Lal as a result of which he died in the hospital at about 8 p.m. the same day. The Vehile was insured with the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co., appellant No. 1. Smt. Krishna Devi, widow of the deceased, Manohar Lal, and three minor sons of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 110A of the M.V. Act, 1939, claiming a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation from the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle for the loss of the life of Manohar Lal. The owner of the vehicle did not file any written statement. The insurance, company filed written statement asserting that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and the owner and the insurer were not liable to pay any compensation. The Claims Tribunal by its order dated May 12, 1975, held that the driver of the vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent driving as a result of which the accident took place resulting in the death of Manohar Lal and, as such, the owner and the insurer both were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal further determined a sum of Rs. 27,000 as compensation payable to the claimants. Aggrieved, the insurer and the owner of the vehicle have preferred this appeal.
(3.) Learned counsellor the appellants urged that the claimants did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal in support of their case that the driver of the vehicle in question was rash and negligent as a result of which the accident took place. On the other hand, the facts as established on record, show that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he violated one way traffic rule on the bridge and further he received injuries as he collided against the railing of the bridge. No injuries were caused to him by the vehicle and, as such, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. We find considerable force in the contention.;