- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 21-02-1990, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nainital (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim No. 41 of 1981, Smt. Dharamawati Devi and others Vs Gurucharan Singh and others, whereby the claim petition was dismissed by the 'the Tribunal'.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 25-11-1980, at about 01:30 p. m. Karan Singh was standing on the Kachhi Patri of road near the east of Lok Bastra Ekkai Haripura and persuaded the farmers not to supply sugarcane to the factory. One tractor bearing registration No. UTF 6339 driven by Gurucharan Singh - Opposite party No. 1 in a very rash and negligent manner came there and crushed the deceased. The claim ant claimed Rs. 15, 00, 000/- as com pensation. At the time of accident, the deceased was a practicing lawyer. He was aged of 46 years and his profes sional income was Rs. 1,000/- and by agriculture and other income comes to Rs. 5, 000/ -. The deceased was a prom ising practicing lawyer and was income tax assessee. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribu nal concerned in lieu of the death of Karan Singh. The owners/respondents filed their written statement in the claim pe tition before the Tribunal concerned al leging therein that the petition for compensation was misconceived and was based on wrong facts and allega tions. The respondents also alleged that the deceased was not a practicing Ad vocate and highly exaggerated income has been shown by the claimants. It was also alleged that the deceased at the time of accident was 55 years of age and he was sick person having very short expectancy of his life. He never looked after the agriculture farm. The Insurance Company also disputed the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim petition. The accident was oc curred due to the fault of the deceased and the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. The opposite party No. 3. In surance Company contested the case by filing written statement stating therein that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of com pensation and that the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident was not being driven by the person holding a licence and the tractor was insured for compensation risk for Rs. 1, 50, 000/-only. The claim petition was not main tainable under law as the death of the deceased - Karan Singh was caused by an intentional act of committing his murder by the driver of the tractor who was planning to murder the deceased for the last several days preceding the incident. It was also alleged that the death of Karan Singh was not the re sult of any accident of the motor vehicle but the offending tractor was used for commission of murder of the de ceased hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether the tractor No. UTF 6339 was being driven by Gurucharan Singh respondent No. 1 or by Gurnam Singh driver on 25-11-1980 at 01:30 p. m. near Lok Vastra Ikai Haripura, P. S. Jaspur? Its effects? 2. Whether the accident in question resulting in the death of Karan Singh occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor in question by its driver? Its effect? 3. What was the age of the de ceased? 4. Whether the deceased was a practicing lawyer? If so, its effect? 5. To what amount of compensa tion, if any, are the claimants en titled and against whom of the respondents? Whether the driver of the tractor in question did not hold a valid driving licence? If so, its effect?;