The Motor Vehicles Act serves as a welfare legislation to provide prompt compensation in motor vehicular accidents, and a liberal approach is required in such cases.

ORDER

H.S. Madaan, J. -

CM-3138-CII-2019 in XOBJC-24-2019

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same stands allowed and delay of 218 days in filing the cross-objections stands condoned.

FAO-8192-2017 (O&M) with XOBJC-24-2019(O&M)

2. On account of death of Bansi alias Bansi Lal son of Jagbir, resident of village Bhiduki, District Palwal in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 10.10.2015 at 3:30/4:00 p.m. in the area of Hassanpur Chowk due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle make Maruti Wagon-R car bearing registration No.HR-30-P-7044 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) by Gajraj Singh (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal), legal representatives of the deceased, namely, Smt.Shyamwati, aged about 22 years - widow, Master Kunj Tanwar, aged about 6 months - minor son, Jagbir aged 63 years - father and Smt.Mohanwati, aged 61 years - mother of the deceased had brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against Gajraj Singh - driver, Mukesh Kumar - owner and M/s Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Chennai - insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents, who put in appearance and offered a contest. Vide detailed Award dated 4.9.2017, the claim petition was accepted and compensation of Rs.30,88,172/- was awarded to the claimants payable by all the three respondents jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition til actual realization.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.3 -insurance company has filed an appeal before this Court, notice of which was given to the respondents. Respondents No.l to 4 have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

6. The main thrust of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company was that the accident in which Bansi @ Bansi Lal had suffered injuries to which he had succumbed, was not caused by respondent No.1 - Gajraj Singh on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In support of is that contention, learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company has argued that there is gross delay in reporting the matter to the police inasmuch as the accident had taken place on 10.10.2015 at about 3:30/4:00 p.m., whereas the FIR was lodged after about six days on 16.10.2015 and in the FIR neither the particulars of the vehicle nor of its driver are given, which clearly goes to show that the vehicle was planted in this case later on by the claimants in connivance with the Investigating Officer just to get compensation. He has further submitted that in the MLR of the deceased, it is mentioned that deceased had suffered injuries for the reason that his motorcycle had skidded, in that way, the Tribunal has reached a wrong conclusion with regard to involvement of Wagon - R car in question in the accident or the accident having taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the said car by Gajraj Singh.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the claimants/cross-objectors has contended that though in the FIR the registration number of the vehicle and name of its driver are not mentioned but it has to be kept in mind that during the course of investigation involvement of Wagon- R car bearing No.HR-30-P-7044 driven by Gajraj Singh - respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, such vehicle belonging to Mukesh Kumar - respondent No.2 and insured with M/s Royal Sudram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai -respondent No.3, was found to be there. On completion of investigation, Gajraj Singh has been challaned for causing death of Bansi @ Bansi Lal by rash and negligent driving of Wagon - R car in question and trial against him is still going on, which falsifies the version set up by the appellant - insurance company.

8. After considering th