CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Lachhmi and Others vs Ranjit Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 February 1995 · Citation: (1995) 110 PLR 308

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — Section 110A
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal From the Order No. 84 of 1989
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 357 words

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed-against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak dated 29.9.1988, which had dismissed the claim petition by holding that the accident was not caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Ranjit Singh.

2.

The Tribunal had assessed the compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- but the same was not to be paid to the claimants as it was held by the Tribunal that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. l, Ranjit Singh.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that no fault can be attributed to the deceased in the accident as there was no evidence to the effect that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a negligent manner. As such, the claimants are entitled to the compensation.

4.

On the other hand Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate contends that the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Ranjit Singh, respondent No. l is based on the evidence and as such the claimants are not entitled to any compensation.

5.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the paper book and the statement of PW-2 Deep Chand, this Court has reached the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who was driving the scooter as well as of Ranjit Singh respondent No. l the driver of the car. Had the drivers of both the vehicle taken necessary pre-cautions, the unfortunate accident could have been avoided.

6.

In this view of the matter, I hold both the drivers equally responsible for the accident. The claimants are held entitled to Rs. 90,000/- as compensation with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition including Rs. 15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal as compensation on account of ''no fault liability''. The liability to pay the compensation would be that of the Insurance Company.

7.

The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.