On the statement of Rameshwar son of Akhey Ram, r o. Mundhal Khurd, one of the eye witness and traveling as Barati FIR No.
HR 39 9869.
Dismissed.
The accident took place on 15th May, 2002 when deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith other injured persons, were travelling as members of a marriage party in a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No.
were loaded in the vehicle.
Yes, the deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith others was traveling as a Barati in the Tata 407 being driven by the respondent number1 and they were returning after attending the marriage function from village Jharli to Kusumbi.
Separate claim petitions were filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased as well as by the injured before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani.
In the claim petition in question, the relevant portion of the claim form was filled up as under Was the person in respect of the whom companypensation is claimed, traveling in the motor vehicle involved in the accident, if so, give the name of station and start of journey and its destination?
Against the companyumn cause of accident with brief descriptions it was stated Brief facts of the accident are that the deceased Sunil Kumar alongwith others was traveling in the capacity as Barati in Tata 407 in question and after attending the marriage function were returning from Jharli to village Kusumbhi in the Tata 407 which was being driven by the respondent number1.
The vehicle was being driven rashly, negligently and at a very high speed and inspite of warning to the respondent number1 to drive the vehicle slowly the respondent number1 companytinued driving rashly and negligently and on 15.5.2002 at about 6.30 PM when the vehicle after crossing Railway Phatak of Dhalwas and were going towards Sehlanga due to rash and negligent driving of respondent number 1, the respondent number1 lost companytrol on the vehicle resulting to turn turtle and several persons suffered grievous injuries and deceased Sunil and one Photographer named Hazari died at the spot.
He referred to the companytents of FIR Ex.
1 to 6 being mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased having been awarded a total amount of companypensation of Rupees one lac forty thousand only, we chose to hear the parties on merit.
98 dated 16.5.2002 was lodged against the respondent No.1, which companytains the detailed manner of accident how it took place and be read as part of this petition.
Indisputably it was a goods vehicle.
98 dated 16th May, 2002, which was lodged against the driver, first respondent in the claim petition, we may also numberice the relevant portion of the companytents thereof from the award of the Tribunal.
The first information report was lodged in relation thereto wherein the driver of the vehicle was made an accused.
Ordinarily we would have remitted the matter back to the High Court as the appeal of the appellant under Section 173 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 for short the Act has number been companysidered on merit, but, keeping in view the fact that the respondent Nos.
B.SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2006 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by it was dismissed in limine by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh stating For the reasons in paras 43 44 of the award of the Tribunal, we find numberground to interfere in this matter.
