- (1.) The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal for challenging the award dated 10.4.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat whereby claimants/ respondents No.1 to 6 were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,70,800/- for the untimely death of their bread earner Lokesh @ Lovkesh in a motor vehicular accident and the appellant, alongwith respondent No. 7 being driver and respondent No.8 being owner of the offending vehicle, was held jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.
(2.) In their petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants had averred that on 13.3.2011 deceased Lovkesh alongwith Kalu was returning to Rambir Bhatta after purchasing grocery. At about 6.30 p.m., when they reached near Rambir Bhatta, the offending vehicle, which was a motor cycle bearing registration No. HR-10N-4078, driven by Madan Lal in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed in a zigzag manner came from Gohana side and struck against Lovkesh after coming on the wrong side. As a result, Lovkesh suffered multiple and grievous injuries. Kalu, who was accompanying Lovkesh lost his consciousness for some time and, therefore, while reporting the matter to the police wrongly gave the registration number of the offending motor cycle as HR-10D-2934 whereas it was actually HR-10N-4078. The motor-cyclist was caught at the spot and had disclosed his name as Madan Lal. When the people who had gathered there started looking after Lovkesh, the motorcyclist managed to escape from the spot. Lovkesh was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak where he breathed his last on 21.3.2011 on account of injuries suffered in the accident. On the statement of Kalu, FIR No. 46 dated 14.3.2011 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered and after the death of Lovkesh, offence under Section 304-A was also added. After thorough investigation, the police arrested Madan Lal and challaned him for the aforementioned offences. Claiming that the deceased was their sole bread earner and employed with Rambir Bhatta Company and getting Rs.8,000/- per month, the claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.
(3.) The driver and owner of the offending motor cycle opposed the claim petition and denied that their motor cycle was involved in the accident. The Insurance Company also filed a separate written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. It was also stated that the claim petition had been filed in collusion with the driver and owner of the motor cycle in order to extract compensation.;