NACHATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. VEENA DEVI & OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2012-7-492
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 16,2012

NACHATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Appellant
VERSUS
Veena Devi And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) 1988 has been filed by the driver and owner of truck No. HR 58-0379 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) challenging the award dated 16.4.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act filed by the widow, minor son and mother of deceased Darshan Singh was partly accepted by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.3,99,600/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till realisation was awarded as compensation for the death of Darshan Singh in a motor vehicular accident involving the offending vehicle driven and owned by appellants 1 and 2 respectively.
(2.) Briefly noticed the facts giving rise to the claim petition are that claimants/respondents filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act alleging that on 28.12.2009 at about 8 pm deceased Darshan Singh had gone to his in laws house at Dabwali on his cycle and when he did not return upto 11 pm, a search was carried out and said Darshan Singh was found dead in a motor vehicular accident caused by the offending vehicle in the area of Dabwali near T Point Jogewala, Tehsil Dabwali. The dead body was identified by Jagsir Singh @ Jagga brother of the deceased and postmortem was carried out. Regarding the incident FIR No.229 dated 29.12.2009 under Sections 279/427/304-A IPC was got lodged by said Jagsir Singh @ Jagga against appellant no.1 in PS City Dabwali. It was further alleged that deceased Darshan Singh was aged 42 years and was a taxi driver by profession. The claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 7 lac.
(3.) Appellants filed joint written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the appellant no.1 had not caused any accident and that he and offending vehicle had been falsely implicated in a criminal case.;


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