ORIENTAL INSUARNCE CO LTD Vs. SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(2.) THIS F. A. O. arises out of a judgment/ award dated 16. 1. 2006 passed by learned presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Hisar in Petition No. 86 of 2005 granting a compensation of Rs. 2,66,000 in a death case.

(3.) IT appears that on the date of accident, i. e. , 9. 7. 2004, deceased Ram Niwas with his relatives Prithvi Singh and Jaivir singh was standing at a bus stand waiting to board a bus for going to Agroha. At that time, at about 10 a. m. , a Maruti Zen No. DL 6-C 5324 came from Adampur side at a very fast speed and was being driven rashly and negligently by driver Munish. While taking turn, Maruti Zen hit a motorcyclist, who was coming at a moderate speed. As a result, the driver of the motor cycle fell down on the road and, thereafter, the offending vehicle struck against the deceased Ram Niwas and his relatives prithvi Singh and Jaivir Singh, who were standing at the bus stand. While Prithvi singh and Jaivir Singh sustained injuries in the accident, Ram Niwas succumbed to multiple injuries on the spot itself. Injured prithvi Singh and Jaivir Singh were shifted to Verma Hospital, Agroha. A claim of rs. 20,00,000 was laid before the learned tribunal in respect of the death of Ram niwas. It appears that on the date of the accident, the deceased was only aged about 24 years. The claimants, i. e. , Saroj, widow of the deceased was of 23 years; Preeti, their minor daughter of about 5 years; bado Devi, the mother of the deceased of 45 years and Mani Ram, the father of the deceased of 50 years. The claimants examined Rajesh as PW 1, Sadhu Ram as PW 2, Ishwar as PW 3, Kela Devi as PW 4, prithvi Singh as PW 5 and Santosh Saini as PW 6. They also placed certain documents, Exhs. P1 to P8 on record. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the claim petition entertained under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') was itself not maintainable in terms of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Deepal Girishbhai soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2004 ACJ 934 (SC ). Learned counsel also admitted that the insurer was not granted permission under section 170 of the Act to contest the claim. However, according to him, in terms of section 149 of the Act, the insurer can question the maintainability of the claim under section 163-A of the Act. Admittedly, the insurance company would not be at liberty to challenge the compensation amount on any other ground.