Mrs. Santosh Duggal, J.

( 1 ) SMT. Pushpa Kakkar and other legal heirs ofthe deceased Surender Mohan Kakkar has filed the petition u/sec. 110-A of them. V. A. claiming compensation amount of Rs. 21,00,000. 00 from the respondentson account of the death caused due to the motor vehicle accident.

( 2 ) THE short facts of the case as per the petitioners are that Sh. Surender Mohan Kakkar deceased aged about 42 years was working as Sectionofficer of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on a monthly salary ofrs. 4,200. 00p. m. The petitioner No. 1 is the widow of the deceased and petitioner No. 2 is the minor son and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the parents of thedeceased who were all dependent on the deceased. On 21-10-88 at about3. 40 p. m. the deceased was going on his two wheeler scooter No. DBK 491from his office towards his home at Vikaspuri and when he reached near Kirbyplace opposite police station a police picket was installed by the police authorities for the purpose of routine checking and in the meantime it is alleged atruck bearing No. DHG 909 owned and driven by Gopal Singh respondentno. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 came in a fast speed driven in a rashand negligent manner and hit truck No. DHG 909 from behind the scooter. It is stated that the truck driver inspite of hitting the scooter from its back didnot slow down the vehicle nor gave any horn struck his truck with full forcefrom behind the scooter with the result Surender Mohan Kakkar fell down fromthe scooter. and front tyre of the truck crushed and ran over the left part of thebody with the result Surender Mohan Kakkar. died instantly who was immediaately removed to Safdarjang Hospital in a P. C. R. van but was declared dead. Itis stated that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving oftruck No. DHG 909 driven by Respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the deceased was a young man of 42years with sober habits and non-smoker and non-drinker and because of hisuntimely death his wife aged about 42 years and minor son aged about 15 yearsand the parents have all been deprived of his who were all dependent on him. The deceased was earning Rs. 4,200. 00 p. m. and was due for promotion andwould have retire at least as Director in the Govt. of India on the scale ofrs. 8,000. 00 p. m. and would have worked upto the age of 58 years. It is statedthat there was history of longivity in the family of the deceased as the father ofthe deceased was still alive at the age of 66 years. It is prayed that the compensation amount of Rs. 21,00,000. 00 alongwith interim amount as providedu/sec. 92-A of the M. V. A. with interest @ 18% p. a. may be passed in favourof the petitioners against the respondents.

( 4 ) AFTER the registration of the petition notice of the petition wasgiven to the respondents who has contented the petition and have filed theirwritten statements.

( 5 ) IN the written statement filed by respondents No. 1 factum of accident is not denied. However, it is denied that the respondent No. 1 had hit thescooter from behind while driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. According to respondent No, 1 the deceased himself was negligent in driving thescooter. According to respondent No. 1 it is denied. that the deceased wasdriving the scooter. in a slow speed due to the police barrier. In fact, thedeceased came from behind the respondent truck and wanted to pass early, therespondent truck was absolutely in a slow speed and was passing carefully andit was the deceased who came from behind and wanted to pass the barrier without waiting for side driving his scooter negligently. It is stated that since theaccident was not caused due to the fault of respondent No. 1, as such the petition is not maintainable and be rejected.

( 6 ) A. separate written statement was also filed on behalf of respondentno. 2. A preliminary objection was raised that respondent No. 2 had noknowledge about the alleged accident as the insured has not i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document