Two Mohali men drag sisters to court after mother dies in mishap
Filing a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation on account of their mother’s death in an accident, the two men put their sisters on notice.punjab Updated: Sep 17, 2017 10:37 IST
In a rather unheard-of legal battles, two sons of a Mohali woman who died in a road accident dragged their two sisters to court, claiming Rs 75-lakh relief from them for negligence.
However, to their dismay, the petition was dismissed, as the UT Motor Accident Claims Tribunal observed there was no proof that the accident took place and all the siblings were possibly in cahoots to extract money from the insurance firm.
In their petition, brothers Devinder Singh and Surinder Singh stated that their mother Karamjit Kaur, 55, was riding pillion on a Honda Activa scooter on way to Chhat village on September 19 last year when it slipped on a rough patch on the Zirakpur-Banur road.
The scooter was owned by their sister Jaspreet Kaur and was being ridden by another sister Jaswinder Kaur.
The brothers alleged that Jaswinder was riding the vehicle rashly, which led to the accident.
A witness, Harbhajan Singh of Chhat, helped Jaswinder and police in shifting Karamjit to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, where she died of her injuries, it was stated.
Filing a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation on account of their mother’s death in an accident, the two men put their sisters on notice.
As the two women failed to appear before the tribunal, it proceeded ex parte.
Claim petition false, says insurance firm
The insurance firm, in its written statement, raised several preliminary objections.
It alleged the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been violated.
The firm alleged the rider was not holding a valid driving licence and it had been provided no information about the accident. Arguing that the brothers had filed a “false claim petition”, it appealed for its dismissal.
It was argued that rash driving and negligence on part of Jaswinder Kaur could not be proved. It was pointed out that in the daily diary report (DDR) filed with the police, no such fact had come to light. Also, questions were raised on the DDR, as it was recorded the next day. Even witness Harbhajan Singh had not seen the vehicle slipping on the road.
After the arguments, the tribunal held that the petitioners failed to establish in what manner the accident took place. The court also pointed out that “the circumstances of the present case were highly suspicious” while opining that the possibility of “planting” of the vehicle could not be ruled out.
There is nothing on record to prove that the claimants intended to take any criminal action against Jaswinder Kaur, said the tribunal, adding that there was nothing to prove the vehicle was even damaged.
“The possibility of misusing the police machinery cannot be ruled out,” the court observed, while stating the claimants were seemingly working in connivance with Jaswinder Kaur.
“They are hand in glove... Their only aim is to get the compensation, which is not justified. Hence the claim petition stands dismissed,” said the judgment.