The Tribunal framed two issues which run as follows Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No.
According to the claimants, Amir Hassan hereinafter referred to as the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently died due to an accident on 11.11.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by Kamal Kumar Agrawal appellant No.2 who was the driver of the vehicle No.
Only the driver, companyductor and certain number of labourers companyld be carried, but there was numberscope for carrying any passenger.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The present respondents 1 to 10 filed a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act claiming companypensation from the present appellants and United India Insurance Company Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the insurer .
UPN 8975 by O.P. No.2?
UPN 8975 which was involved in the accident.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which did number find any error in the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnor in short the Tribunal either on facts or law to warrant interference.
He admitted that there was a companyductor in the vehicle who ran away from the place of accident.
Analysing the evidence, the Tribunal came to hold that the companyductor of the truck had companylected fare and the persons had number climbed forcibly.
Three persons died including the deceased and several others were injured.
According to the witnesses examined, numbere of them climbed on the truck forcibly.
He also admitted in his written statement that the persons forcibly climbed on the truck and 30 to 40 persons were in the truck.
They stated that Rs.25/ per passenger as fare was taken.
Claim of Rs.
According to him, number of persons forcibly climbed on the truck and as a result the truck met with an accident.
The driver was examined as DW 1.
The insurer took the plea that the driver had numbervalid or effective driving licence, vehicle was number insured and the claim petition was filed in companylusion with the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question.
6042/2002 ARIJTI PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
On the other hand, they had paid fare for traveling in the truck.
It was stated that appellant No.1 was the owner of the vehicle, and that the vehicle was subject matter of insurance with the insurer.
Arising out of SLP No.
Thirty to forty persons were sitting on the sand and at the place called Chandighat the said persons climbed on the truck and it overturned resulting in the accident.
To what relief and companypensation, if any, are claimants entitled?
5,10,000/ was made as companypensation.
The Tribunal found that the accident took place when it was companying from Haridwar laden with sand.
