BANSI LAL Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of F. A. O. Nos. 519 and 558 of 1982 as both of them are directed against the award dated May 10, 1982, of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short "the Tribunal" ).

(2.) SURINDER Kumar, aged about 26/27 years, was serving as a cook in the Punjab Police. On April 21, 1981, he was travelling in truck No. PNH 7191 driven by Sohan Singh, respondent No. 1, and owned by Shri Munshi Ram, contractor, respondent No. 2. It was insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3. The truck was going from Garhshanker to village Samundra. It met with an accident in the revenue limits of village Samundra at about 10. 45 p. m. It struck against a sheesham tree on its right side. Surinder Kumar received serious injuries in this accident and died as a result thereof, Smt. Usha Rani, widow of the deceased, and his two minor daughters, namely, Miss Sonia, aged 4 years, and Miss Seema, aged 10 months, filed claim application before the Tribunal which was registered as Claim Case No. 7 of May 8, 1981. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of the death of Surinder Kumar, stating that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1. Another Claim Application No. 8 of May 13, 1981, was filed by Bansi Lal and Smt. Krishna, father and mother of Surinder Kumar before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs, 80,000. Both the claim applications where opposed by the respondents. It was pleaded by respondent No. 1 that the deceased boarded the truck of his own accord and without his permission ; that he was driving the truck at a very moderate speed with all care and caution and that the accident took place for reasons beyond his control. Respondent No. 2 also raised similar pleas in his defence. The insurance company, respondent No. 3, besides denying the fact that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 1, further stated that the vehicle was a goods carrier. Surinder Kumar, the deceased, was not authorised to be carried in the truck. The policy of insurance of the truck did not cover the liability in respect of the death of Surinder Kumar. It was further pleaded that the truck was being driven by a person not holding a valid driving licence. Thus, respondent No. 3, denied its liability. The learned Tribunal consolidated both the claim applications and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues : 1. Whether the death of Surinder Kumar occurred in the accident due to the rashness or negligence or both of Sohan Singh, respondent ? OPA. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants in both the claim applications are entitled and from which of the respondents ? OPA.

(3.) WHETHER at the time of the accident, the truck involved in the accident was not being driven by an authorised person holding a valid licence and if so, what is its effect ? OPR No. 3.