Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1851 (PNJ)

Golu @ Rohit v. Dinesh Kumar And Others

2009-10-28

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. CM No. 5214-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. FAO No. 1116 of 2009 2. This is claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation by modifying the award dated 20.12.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari. 3. As per the averments made in this case, on 15.3.2006 one Vikrant along with Raj Kumar, Smt. Suman, Golu and Gagan Kumar were going to village Milkhpur, Rajasthan, from Rewari in Car No. HR36-B/2386 which was being driven by Raj Kumar at a normal speed on the correct side of the road. When the car was 1 kilometer ahead of village Hansaka on Rewari-Dharuhera road, Gypsy No. HR-26/D-7105 being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed came from front side and hit the car. Resultantly, all the occupants of the car sustained injuries. Vikrant sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. Smt. Suman wife of Raj Kumar who had sustained fatal injuries succumbed in Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, while the claimants Golu, Rajkumar and Gagan sustained injuries. FIR No. 18 dated 15.3.2006 under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC, Police Station Sadar Rewari was registered in this regard. Mahavir and Monika who were travelling in Gypsy No. HR-26D/7105 also sustained injuries. 4. Thus, dependent-legal representatives of Vikrant and Smt. Suman and the injured claimants Golu, Raj Kumar and Gagan, who were occupants of Car No. HR36-B-2386 and Mahavir and Monika occupants of Gypsy No. HR-26/D-7105, all filed petitions claiming compensation. 5. Upon notice, respondent-Dinesh Kumar, who was driver of Gypsy No. HR-26/D- 7105 filed written statement denying the factum of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimants. It was also denied that the Gypsy was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. 6. Mukesh Kumar filed written statement denying the contents of claim petition regarding the accident etc. He further stated that he was not owner in possession of Gypsy No. HR-26/D-7105 and the same was sold to Dinesh Kumar. 7. Respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company filed written statement raising various preliminary objections and further pleading that respondent- Dinesh Kumar was not holding a valid and effecting driving licence at the time of accident. The contents of claim petition regarding accident, injuries sustained by the claimants and deceased were denied. 7. Respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company filed written statement raising various preliminary objections and further pleading that respondent- Dinesh Kumar was not holding a valid and effecting driving licence at the time of accident. The contents of claim petition regarding accident, injuries sustained by the claimants and deceased were denied. Dismissal of the claim petition was prayed. 8. All the claim petitions were consolidated by the Tribunal and disposed of vide common judgment impugned herein. 9. On pleadings of parties, vide order dated 12.12.2006 the following issues were framed : " 1. Whether deceased Vikrant son of Sh. Birender and Suman wife of Sh. Raj Kumar died and petitioners Golu. Raj Kumar Gagan Kumar. Mahavir and Monika sustained injuries in the motor vehicular accident dated 15.3.2006 caused on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 while driving the Gypsy bearing registration No. HR-26-D/7105 7OPP. 2. If issue No. 1, is proved in alternative, whether the petitioners in all the claim petitioners are entitled for the compensation. If so to what amount and form whom ? OPP. 3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged ? OPR-3 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question on the day of alleged accident ? OPR-3 5. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petitions against the answering respondents ? OPR-3 6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy ? OPR 7. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder to necessary parties as the driver, owner and insurer of Maruti Car No. HR36-B-2386 have not been arrayed as respondents, as allege ? OPR. 3 8. Relief." 10. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Gypsy No. HR-26/D-7105 namely Dinesh Kumar-respondent. Issues Nos. 3 to 7 were not pressed by the respondents and accordingly were decided against them. After determining the compensation in favour of the appellants, the Tribunal held that the respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited(insurer of Gypsy No. HR-26/D-7105) was liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimant-appellants. Issues Nos. 3 to 7 were not pressed by the respondents and accordingly were decided against them. After determining the compensation in favour of the appellants, the Tribunal held that the respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited(insurer of Gypsy No. HR-26/D-7105) was liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimant-appellants. It was further held that the said Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to Mahavir and Monika, who were traveling in the offending vehicle i.e Gypsy No. HR-26/D-7105. 11. In the present appeal (arising out of MACT No. 56 of 2006), a total sum of Rs. 33,000/- has been awarded for the injuries suffered by Golu @ Rohit who was a school going boy. The appellant produced on record medical bills etc. to prove expenses for his treatment at Rs. 21,705/- and the same was awarded by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal also awarded miscellaneous expenses to the tune of Rs. 4,295/-. As per evidence on record, injured remained in the hospital for one week. However, there is no other evidence to show the injuries. Nothing has been brought on record to prove the nature of the injuries and thus, in the absence of any such evidence it cannot be said that compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded on account of pain and sufferings in this case was inadequate. 12. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.