Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO

Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short, 'the Tribunal’) in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the appellant-Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.84,25,000/- to the claimants along with interest @7.5% per annum as well as on the ground of quantum of compensation to be on higher side.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.10.2014 Jagsir Singh (since deceased) had started from Jakhal Mandi for going to Rajasthan in Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.HR-71A-5646 where the work of over-bridge was going on of Zanders Engineers Ltd and the said vehicle, belongs to the company and which was being driven by Harvinder Singh at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and when the jeep reached 7-8 acres towards village Diwana from Shakarpura T-point then on account of its fast speed, the driver lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which the Bolero Jeep struck against the side kikkar tree and both Harvinder Singh as well as Jagsir Singh sustained serious injuries and died at the spot. Later on the police of Police Station Jakhal recorded a rapat No.8 dated 23.10.2014 at the instance of father of Harvinder Singh, driver of the said Bolero and hushed up the case and did not record the FIR against the driver in collusion with the relatives of Darshan Singh, who was not even an eye witness. However, the fact remains that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep No.HR-71A-5646, which was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The petitioners further pleaded that post mortem examination was conducted at General Hospital, Tohana and a sum of 90,000/- was spent on transportation of dead body and on last rites ceremony. It was further pleaded that prior to his death, Jagsir Singh was 35 years old and was hale and hearty person and the deceased after completing his studies started the contractor-ship in private sector whereafter he was appointed as Site Incharge of Chittorgarh site by SECL Industries Ltd. (formerly Singla Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) and he had earned a name in the field of construction of big projects and after completing the project in Chittorgarh, the deceased had recently joined as Project Coordinator with a construction company namely Zanders Engineers Ltd. having its corporate office at Chandigarh on 28.12.2013 whereby he was being given a salary of 45,000/- per month and the deceased was having very high prospectus and as such his income definitely would have multiplied in future. Besides this, the deceased was also having 10 acres of land at village Mohanpura and was supervising the cultivation of the lands and his services towards management of the agricultural pursuits and land can be assessed at 20,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that petitioner No.1 is the widow, petitioner No.2 is the minor son and petitioner No.3 is mother of deceased Jagsir Singh and all the petitioners were totally dependent upon the earning of the deceased and due to death of Jagsir Singh, the petitioners have been deprived of love and affection of Jagsir Singh and lives of the petitioners have been completely ruined.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and admitted the factum of compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :-

“1. Whether accident dated 23.10.2014 resulting in death of Jagsir Singh occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-71A-5646 by respondent No.1? OPP.

2.