AMAR SINGH Vs. NATHA RAM
LAWS(P&H)-2006-9-152
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 20,2006

AMAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
NATHA RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of two appeals bearing No. 876 and 1058 of 1992. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from FAO No. 1058 of 1992.
(2.) THE present appeals have been filed against a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa vide which the claim petitions filed by the claimants were dismissed. It was alleged in the claim petition that on 18.6.1990 at about 2/2.30 p.m. Manjit Singh was coming from Ellanabad to Rania on a brand new scooter of Bajaj Super make to which even the registration number had not been allotted. The scooter was driven by one Naveen Kumar. Tarsem Singh was also one of the two pillion riders. When the scooter crossed Ellenabad by about one kilometre, then jeep No. RSF-1978 allegedly came from the opposite side. This jeep was being driven by respondent No. 1 Natha Ram in rash and negligent manner and it struck against the scooter by going on the wrong side of the road. As a result of this impact, the scooterists fell down on the road. While Manjit Singh died at the spot, Tarsem Singh received multiple injuries. The First Information Report No. 87, dated 19.6.1990 for causing this accident under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, IPC was registered at P.S. Ellanabad.
(3.) CLAIM Petition No. 23 of 1990 was brought by Amar Singh and Bharawan Bai, who are the parents of the deceased Manjit Singh. They claimed that they were solely dependent on their son Manjit Singh (deceased), who was a bachelor and aged about 21 years at the time of this mishap and was earning Rs. 1,500 per month by doing the job of an agricultural labourer. They sought compensation of Rs. two lacs, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and interim compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140 of the Act. It was claimed that Natha Singh respondent No.l was erring driver and Ram Sarup respondent No. 2 was owner of jeep No. RSF-1978 and, therefore, they were liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It was also mentioned that jeep was not insured with any Insurance Company at the time of accident.;


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