P.K.LOHRA,J. - (1.) Feeling partially aggrieved by judgment and award dated 1st of August 2013, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), appellant-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').
(2.) The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that appellant-claimants preferred a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act before learned Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,50,000/-. It is inter-alia averred in the claim petition that on the fateful day of 16th July, 2012, at about 5:30 PM, deceased Manish Kumar Qureshi was travelling in a Mini Bus bearing No.RJ-31-PA-1834 from Bhadra to Sherda. Appellant-claimants also pleaded that the bus was driven by its driver (first respondent) rashly and negligently with fast speed, therefore, at about 5:45 PM, it turned turtle on Bhadra Hisar Main Road and 16-17 passengers, who boarded the bus, suffered injuries. The deceased, in the accident, suffered grave and serious injuries, and therefore, died on the spot. The incident was reported to police and thereupon FIR was lodged which eventually culminated into charge-sheet for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC against first-respondent ' driver. Quantifying the aforementioned amount of compensation, appellant-claimants pleaded that at the time of death deceased Manish Kumar was 25 years old and possessing the qualification of B.A., B.Ed., M.A., B.Lib. with Diploma in Information Technology to his credit. It is also averred in the claim petition that at the time of his death deceased was serving as Librarian with Choudhary Parma Ram Godara Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalay, Bhadra and earning Rs. 6,000/- per men sum. With these pleadings, the appellants quantified the total amount of compensation under different heads.
(3.) The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with a specific plea that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. A plea is sought to be raised by the respondents that the accident occurred due to failure of steering, and therefore, it was a pure and simple case of vis major. While adverting to the quantum of compensation, the respondents pleaded in the return that appellant-claimants have claimed exorbitant amount of compensation for which they are not entitled. The factum of vehicle being insured with third respondent-insurer is also incorporated in the reply.;