ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Kullu awarding a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the petitioners who are the wife, minor children and the mother of the deceased. The facts of the case are that the petition claiming just compensation was instituted by the petitioners on the pleadings that on 11.7.2005 the ill-fated vehicle, which is a Mohindra Camper bearing registration No. HP-66-0709, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal Shri Tej Singh in which the deceased Rajinder Kumar was travelling. When the said vehicle reached near Garsa it fell down 35-40 feet below the road level resulting in serious injuries to the deceased who ultimately succumbed to these injuries. A petition, praying for Rs. 50 lacs as just compensation, was instituted before the learned Tribunal.

(2.) The petition was resisted by the respondent-owner M/s Bhola Singh Jai Prakash Pvt. Ltd who filed reply which does not dispute the pleadings of the claimants save and except the income which was being earned by the deceased who was working as a mechanic with them,. Respondent No. 2 driver, admits the accident but denies rash and negligent acts attributed to him.

(3.) The Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 (appellant herein) has resisted the application primarily on the ground that the vehicle was notinsured with it, the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, the owner of the vehicle was not possessing valid documents, route permit, token tax etc. of the vehicle. He did not have a fitness certificate which was being plied in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act (sic provisions of) and the contract of the insurance policy as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. This objection has been taken as a preliminary objection and it is reiterated in the reply on merits. It is on these pleadings that the parties went to trial before the learned Tribunal which settled six issues, the last relating to the relief. The onus of two issues with respect to the fact as to whether deceased Rajinder Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving and the quantum was obviously on the claimants. On three other settled issues, namely; (a) whether the ill-fated vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, (b) whether respondent No. 2 (driver in this case) was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and lastly (c) whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the onus was on the Insurance Company.