Satvir Singh vs Shanti and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, which on a claim petition u/s 110-A Motor Vehicles Act, had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the claimants respondents on account of death of Dharamvir and injuries sustained by them in the accident alleged to have taken place on 14.6.1988. The liability to pay compensation Was fastened on the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, who is appellant before this Court.

Aggrieved against the said award dt. 6.9.1990 the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

In order to dispose of the claim petition filed by the respondent claimants, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal, had framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on the grounds mentioned in the claim petition and if so, to what amount? OPP

2) Whether the accident took place by the negligent driving of fourwheeler No. DBL 9804 by respondent No. 1? OPP.

3) Whether the respondent NO. 2 has no liability as alleged in para No. 2 of the preliminary objection of its written statement? 4) Relief.

On issue No. 2, the Tribunal had returned a categorical finding that the alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Fourwheeler No. DBL 9804 driven by Satvir Singh, On issue No. 3, the Tribunal had returned a finding that injured and the deceased were not gratuitous passengers and the offending vehicle was not for carrying passengers. Following the ratio of the decision rendered by this Court in Bansi Lal v. Sohan Singh (1987) 91 P.L.R. 512 on which reliance was placed by United India Insurance Co., it was held by the Tribunal that Insurance Co., respondent No. 2 was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. As such this issue was decided against the respondent No. 1 now appellant.

Under issue No. 1 the claimants were held entitled to Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file. I am not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned finding arrived at by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 which is based on convincing and cogent reasoning. The testimony of Shanti Devi (PW-1) and Rajbir (PW-3) clearly reveals that the four wheeler in which the deceased Dharamvir and injured-claimants were travelling was being followed by another fourwheeler. These two fourwheelers were competing with each other with a view to pick up passengers on the road side and the offending vehicle was being driven by Satvir Singh at a very high speed. Because of this, the appellant had lost control over his four wheeler which fell on one side of the road resulting in the death of Dharamvir and causing injuries to the claimants. It was rightly held by the Tribunal under this issue that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of fourwheeler No. DBL 9804 being driven by Satvir Singh. Under issue No. 3 it was observed by the Tribunal that the deceased and injured were not gratuitous passengers in the offending fourwheeler and they were passengers on payment. Since the offending vehicle was not meant for carrying passengers and it was only meant for transportation of goods the United India Insurance Company was rightly held not liable to pay compensation. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on both these issues.

Consequently the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.