A claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act may be dismissed if the claimants conceal a prior settlement and the evidence regarding rash and negligent driving is contradictory and unreliable.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-10137-CII-2017

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

Heard.

For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed; and delay of 20 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

FAO-3076-2017

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition bearing MACP Case No. 09 of 2016 dated 30.01.2016filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short-‘the learned Tribunal) vide impugned Award dated 17.11.2016. The 04 claimants are the:

i) 36-year-old widow;

ii) 02 minor children; and

iii) 75-year-old mother of deceased-Sukhwinder Singh who was 41 years old who died in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 29.10.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of car baring registration No. HR-01-Y-4792 (hereinafter referred to as-‘the offending Car’) being owned and driven by respondent No. 1; and insured by respondent No. 2-Insurance Company.

2. Pleaded case of the claimants as recorded in paras No. 2 and 3 of the impugned Award, reads as follows: -

“2. According to petitioners, on 29.10.2015, deceased was coming to Shahabad (M) from Delhi travelling in offending car bearing No. HR-01Y-4792. He was going to his village Dera Salimpur and was to get down from the car at the Bus Stand of Shahabad (M), Distt. Kurukshetra. The car was being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner and at high speed without observing the traffic rules. When car reached on the service lane on G.T. Road at Shahabad (M), respondent no.1 could not control his car due to high speed. Resultantly, car was rammed into the railing on the road, due to which deceased suffered multiple and serious injuries. Some passersby took out injured Sukhwinder Singh from the car. Respondent no.1 and his other associates ran away from the spot. The deceased was shifted to L.N.J.P. hospital, Kurukshetra but could not survive and died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The postmortem was conducted in the said hospital. On the statement of eye witness Mukesh Kumar, DDR Entry No.41 dated 29.10.2015 was recorded at Police Station Shahabad (M).

3. Further case of the claimants is that at the time of his death, deceased was a young person of 41 years of age. He was driver by profession in Delhi. Initially, he was working with Ajmer Singh on his car and later on, he was working as driver with Shri Gurdial Singh son of Shri Kaushal Singh, Haryana Taxi Service, Karkarduma, Shopping Centre, Delhi. He was getting ₹12,000/- per month by the said work. His untimely death has scattered the hopes of the claimants, who were dependent solely on the income of the deceased. Both minor children of deceased are school going. The claimants have suffered great financial loss, as there is no other member in the family to earn livelihood. The claimants spent ₹40,000/- on the last rites of the deceased.”

3. Upon appraisal of pleadings and evidence adduced before it, the learned Tribunal had concluded that“……accident was caused due to some technical defect in car, without fault of the driver of the car and there was no rash and negligent driving. It is further held that PW-3 Mukesh is not a reliable witness.”

4. Learned counsel for t