- (1.) Appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this court in terms of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter for short as Act for setting aside the Award-judgment dated 27th of February, 2007 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pulwama in a claim petition titled Mohammad Akbar Ganie and anr. v. Raghbir Singh and others, hereinafter for short as 'impugned award', on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the insurer came to be saddled with liability illegally and without any justification, because, cheque for the amount of premium was bounced and Insurance Policy was cancelled. He has not questioned the award on any other ground. Thus precisely the attack to the impugned award is on the ground of liability while keeping in view the effect of bouncing of cheque. BRIEF FACTS
(3.) Bilal Ahmad Ganie became victim of vehicular accident on 22nd of September, 1999 at village Kasbayar, the offending vehicle was being driven by driver rashly and negligently, hit electric pole which fell on the back of Bilal Ahmad who sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The victim was student of 8th Class, was brilliant, hailing from a backward area and had to become a doctor. Claimants had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 4.24 lacs as per the breakup given in the claim petition. The driver and owner have not caused appearance before the Tribunal. Only insurer-appellant contested the claim and following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether on 22.09.1999 a speedy truck bearing registration No. JK02-7525 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, on reaching village Qasbayar, struck with an electric pole standing by the side of the road. Consequently the electric pole fell down on the back of the deceased Bilal Ahmad Ganie, causing extensive injuries to him resulting in his death? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners herein are entitled to compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act? If so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the Insurance company, respondent No.2, is not liable to pay the compensation. If so why and how? OPR-2 4. Relief.;