- (1.)This first appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 14.3.2002 passed by learned M.A.C.T./Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 67 of 1993 Kashi Ratneshwar Dayal Tiwari and Ors. v. Sudama Lal Sonkar and Ors. wherein the claim petition has been allowed and the appellant Rameshwar Bux Singh, respondents Sudama Lal Sonkar owner and Dinesh Sonkar driver of the vehicle have been held liable jointly and severally to pay Rs. 2,98,000/ - as compensation, however, respondent/opposite parties City Bank and Oriental Insurance Company have been absolved of their liabilities.
(2.)A perusal of the record goes to show that a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was moved by respondents/petitioners Kashi Ratneshwar Dayal Tiwari and four others claiming themselves to be dependents and legal heirs of deceased Praksh Chandra Tiwari aged about 20½ years, for compensation with regard to his death in the accident in question, with this allegation that on 21.8.1992 at about 12.00 A.M. a Jeep bearing registration No. M.P. 07A-7331 being driven rashly and negligently from Allahabad to Pratapgarh dashed Scooter No. U.P. 70/4005 by which deceased Prakash Chandra Tiwari was coming from Pratapgarh to Allahabad, near village Maganpur on Faizabad Allahabad Road within the circle of P.S. Mauaima, Allahabad, as a result of which the deceased succumbed to his injuries and died soon after the accident. The offending vehicle was being driven with very high speed beyond the control of the driver, who did not observe the traffic rules and failed to blow horn or give signal. The deceased was a qualified Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Side (Architect) and he completed his course from a recognised Engineering Institute, namely, Manohar Bhai Patel Institute of Engineering and Technology of Gondia University, Nagpur. The deceased had also appeared in the Indian Engineering Services Examination (Pre) in the year 1992, conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi. The deceased was getting Rs. 4000/ - per month as salary besides outside work of the trade.
(3.)The opposite party No. 1 Sudama Lal Sonkar in his written statement denied the allegations made in the claim petition and alleged that the vehicle No. M.P. 07A-7331 was being driven with controlled speed on the correct and proper side i.e. left of the road as per the traffic rules and when all of sudden the driver of Scooter No. U.P. 70/4005, which was being driven rashly and negligently with three passengers i.e. driver and two persons on back seat, came from opposite direction and the driver became nervous after having seen jeep in question, he lost his control over his scooter and thus he suddenly came on the wrong side of the road and he himself dashed above jeep resulting in accident and the driver of the jeep inspite of due precaution could not avoid the accident. The deceased was unemployed having no independent income and he was dependent on his father. The opposite party No. 1 purchased above Jeep Mahendra bearing registration No. M.P. 07A-7331 by taking loan from City Bank, N.A. Jeewan Bharti Building 124, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi on 4.4.1991 and it was under hypothecation of City Bank on the date of the accident. In view of the rules and customs prevalent, the Bank got the vehicle insured with the Oriental Insurance Company opposite party and thus City Bank and Oriental Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation, if any. It was also alleged by opposite party No. 1 that on the date of the accident the opposite party No. 4 Excise Inspector, R.B. Singh asked the opposite party No. 1 to provide jeep in question as he wanted to go to Pratapgarh and come back on the same day, at which the opposite party No. 1 expressed his inability to provide the same as the driver of the vehicle was on leave due to his illness whereupon R.B. Singh himself brought some person to driver the vehicle and ill-fated accident took place due to fault of scooter driver.