JUDGEMENT
Harbans Lal, J. -
(1.) This appeal is directed
by Rulda Singh, Amar Singh and Surjit
Singh against the award dated 13/10/2006
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the
present appellants were held liable for
payment of compensation to the tune of
Rs. 6,02,200 jointly and severally. Feeling
aggrieved therewith, the appellants have
preferred this appeal.
(2.) The facts are these: On 11.1.2003 at
about 6.30 p.m., Netar Singh and Cham-
kaur Singh were proceeding from Amloh
towards village Warraichan on a scooter
bearing registration No. PB 48-3002 driven
by Netar Singh. Chamkaur Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. When they neared
village Noorpura near Amloh, meanwhile a
tractor bearing registration No. PBD 1503
of which one light was on being driven by
Rulda Singh came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. Netar
Singh slowed down the speed and stopped
the scooter on his own side on seeing the
tractor coming on the wrong side. The tractor struck against the scooter. As a result
of its impact, the driver as well as the pillion rider of the scooter sustained injuries.
The injured persons were removed to the
hospital. Netar Singh succumbed to the
injuries. On these allegations, the claim
petition was filed. All the five respondents
resisted the claim petitions by traversing
the facts embodied therein. Ujaggar Singh
as well as Amarjit Singh, respondents put
forth that they had sold the tractor in question to respondents Amar Singh and Surjit
Singh on 19/9/2002. The following issues
were framed by the learned Tribunal:
"(1) Whether Netar Singh died in the
accident which took place on 11.1.2003
at 6.30 p.m. at village Noorpura near
Amloh due to rash and negligent driving
of respondent No. 1, Rulda Singh while
driving tractor No. PBD 1503? OPA
(2) Whether the claimants are entitled
to receive compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom? OPA
(3) Relief."
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for
the parties and examining the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal passed the
award as noticed at the outset. As is borne
out from the record, the respondent Nos.
1 to 4 herein this appeal were being represented by Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate
whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were
being represented by Mr. Suvineet Sharma,
Advocate. None has come forward to argue
on behalf of these respondents.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.