The judgment established the entitlement of a married daughter to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, irrespective of dependency on the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant is present. None present even in the revised list on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2.

2. Heard arguments.

3. This appeal has been filed against judgment and award dated 13.10.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut in M.A.C.P no. 424 of 2010 (Smt. Sushma Vs. Harpal Singh and another) by which the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 2,60,500/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the petition.

4. An accident took place on 14.10.2009 in which father of the claimant was dashed by the offending vehicle and sustained injuries and during treatment he died. The number of the offending vehicle has been shown to be PB-10 DT-7995 and the driver was coming from Meerut side driving the offending truck rashly and negligently. In support of the accident, FIR was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police for the offence under Section 279, 337, 304A and 427 IPC. Claimant being married daughter of the deceased filed this claim petition stating that at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 54 years and he was a Rajmistri and contractor and his monthly earning was Rs. 7,500/-. It was also stated that after causing the accident the driver of the offending truck left the truck at the spot and escaped away. Therefore, this claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

5. Against the claim petition, the owner of the truck Harpal Singh filed his written statement denying the allegation of the claim petition and stating that the accident did not take place because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver but it took place because of the own negligence of the deceased. It has been further stated that the truck was insured with Insurance Company and driver was holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident and therefore, if at all any responsibility is fixed the responsibility to pay compensation is on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the allegations of the claim petition and stating that the claimant is not dependent of the deceased being a married daughter and therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation. The insurance of offending vehicle and valid driving licence of the driver has been also denied.

6. On the basis of pleadings of both the sides the learned tribunal framed four issues. The English translation is as below:-

1. Whether on 14.10.2009, when father of the claimant/deceased Ram Gopal was waiting with other persons for bus to go Kairana at Sadak Pukhta, Bus Stand Fugana, Bahad Police Station Fugana, District Muzaffarnagar, offending vehicle bearing registration no. PB-10 BT-7997 of opposite party no. 1 coming from Meerut side and the driver driving the truck very rashly and negligently dashed Ram Gopal and others, caused injuries and during treatment Ram Gopal died?

2. Whether driver of the offending truck bearing registration no. PB-10 BT-7997 was holding valid licence or not?

3. Whether the offending truck bearing registration no. PB-10 BT-7997 was insured by The New India Assurance Company, opposite party no.2?

4. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation amount, if yes, then how much and from whom?

7. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the driving licence of the driver was on record and the learned tribunal found that the driver of the offending truck was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Similarly, the insurance paper of the offending truck was filed from which it was concluded that the offending truck was very much insured with the Insurance Company. Therefore, the learned Tribunal very rightly decided the Issue no 2 and 3 in favour of the claimant.

8. In support of the claim petition PW-1 claimant and daughter of the deceased and PW-2, Mahboob Ali eyewitness were examined. PW-1 has sup