R.K.Rastogi, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against award dated 27.1.1996 passed by Sri Rajdeo, then learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/lllrd Addl. District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in M.A.C.P. No. 78 of 1994, Smt. Manju Gupta and others v. Rajendra Kumar and another .
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 filed aforesaid claim petition in the Court of District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri against the appellant and respondents No. 6 to 8 with these allegations that Anand Kumar Gupta was husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of claimants No. 2 to 5. On 6.8.1994 at about 9.30 A.M. Anand Kumar Gupta was going from Tikonia to Lakhimpur on a Bajaj Super Scooter and when he reached near village Motipur police station Singahi, district Kheri, truck No. USH 2590 which was being driven towards back by its driver negligently, crushed Anand Kumar Gupta. Consequently, Anand Kumar Gupta died. His age was 36 years at that time and he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month by doing his business. The claimants were widow and children of the deceased and they lost source of their livelihood due to his death. If Anand Kumar Gupta had not died at that time, he would have lived upto the age of 90 years and would have earned Rs. 7,00,000/- during this period. The claimants, therefore, claimed Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation.
(3.) The claim petition was contested by the appellant as well as by respondents Nos. 6 to 8. The respondents No. 6 and 7 filed a joint written statement in which they admitted ownership of truck No. USH 2590 and pleaded that the vehicle was insured. They further pleaded that no accident had taken place with their above truck on the above date and the vehicle which had actually caused accident had disappeared from the spot; and their truck, which was following that vehicle, has been falsely implicated in the case. The truck was being driven by a licensed driver and he has got a valid licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. The accident had taken place between the scooter and the truck, but insurer of the scooter has not been impleaded and so the case is bad for its non-joinder. The claimants have claimed excessive amount of compensation. If the owners of the vehicle are found liable to pay compensation, their liability is to be borne by the National' insurance Company, as the vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident. The deceased was himself driving the scooter rashly and negligently and the accident took place due to his negligence.;