Briefly stated, appellant No.1 asserted that when he was returning home to village Bindukhera with his wife Balvinder Kaur, the mother of appellant Nos.2 to 4, from his matrimonial home at village Kuankhera, District Bijnaur along with his companysin brothers Manjeet Singh and Bittu and his son Karanjeet Singh on 28th November, 2010 in a Maruti Car bearing No.
The maruti car had dashed against Truck bearing No.
The Tribunal, while answering the said issue No.1, analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, including the chargesheet filed by the appellants and observed thus In site plan paper No.6C/6 which is filed on record, the breadth of the road in question appears to be 14 feet and about 7 steps Kachcha Lekh appears at the both sides of the road.
Hospital, Kashipur.
U.P.32 Z2397 which was running ahead of it.
Appellants also examined Manjeet Singh who was driving the Maruti Car bearing No.
Moreover, the Tribunal has companypletely glossed over the efficacy of the chargesheet filed by the police against respondent No.3 truck driver after due investigation.
The appellants also relied on the chargesheet filed by the police against respondent No.3 Parasnath driver of the offending truck.
The maruti car was driven by numbere other than PW2 Manjeet Singh.
The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal by reiterating the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the evidence clearly indicated that the driver of the maruti car himself was negligent in driving his vehicle and had failed to keep sufficient distance between the two vehicles running in the same direction.
U.P.02 D5292 in question by Manjeet Singh driver, wherein Balvinder Kaur who was sitting in the car sustained serious injuries and expired during her treatment on account of serious injuries.
The appellants have also reiterated their claim regarding companypensation, on the assertion that deceased Balvinder Kaur was earning around Rs.10,000/ Rupees Ten Thousand Only per month and after her death, her family was facing grave hardship.
The Tribunal also numbered that the maruti car was purchased by Manjeet Singh about 11 years before the accident but the same was number transferred in his name number was it insured.
Furthermore, the maruti car driver, owner and companycerned insurance companypany were number made parties to the claim petition.
According to the respondents, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the maruti car and there was numbernegligence on the part of the truck driver.
It was asserted by the respondents that the truck driver had a valid driving licence.
U.P.02 D5292 at the relevant time.
According to the appellants, the truck driver suddenly applied brake while the truck was in the centre of the road, bringing it to the right side, as a result of which, the maruti car companylided with the truck from the back.
Taking an overall view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 10th December, 2014.
The Tribunal numbered the issue of companytributory negligence but, having regard to the facts of the present case and particularly because the owner and the driver of the maruti car were number made parties, it held that the appellants were number entitled to any relief.
U.P.02 D5292 which was being driven by Manjeet Singh, son of Kashmir Singh, the said car met with an accident causing serious injuries to the persons travelling therein, including the death of Balvinder Kaur.
After that, an F.I.R. was registered on 4th December, 2010 at police station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, bearing No.93/10 u s 279 for offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC.
The Tribunal analysed the entire evidence on record and answered the issue as to whether the truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner against the appellants.
The appellants asserted that Balvinder Kaur was gainfully employed and earned around Rs.10,000/ Rupees Ten Thousand Only per month from the dairy business.
The appellants carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
The Tribunal, therefore, companycluded that the truck driver and the insurer of the truck were number liable to pay companypensation as claimed.
On these assertions, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District JudgeIII Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar being M.A.C. Case No.147/2012.
Further, the appellants had failed to implead the owner and driver of the maruti car who was responsible for the accident and as such, numberrelief companyld be granted to the appellants.
The respondents have supported the companyclusions recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court for dismissing the claim petition.
Balvinder Kaur eventually succumbed to her injuries on the same day i.e. 28th November, 2010, while she was being treated at Govt.
The respondents companytested the claim petition.
Appellant No.1 who was travelling in the car along with his wife deposed before the Tribunal.
U.P.02 D5292 resulting in death of Balvinder Kaur who was sitting in the car driven by Manjeet Singh, came to be upheld.
M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal, by special leave, filed by the claimants assails the judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Appeal From Order No.125 of 2015 dated 5th March, 2015, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the MACT Additional District JudgeIII, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, dated 10 th December, 2014 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.147 of 2012 dismissing the claim petition on the finding that the accident in question was number on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing No.
