UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. ZAHOORA BEGUM
LAWS(J&K)-2020-2-87
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on February 10,2020

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Appellant
VERSUS
Zahoora Begum Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, j. - (1.)The United India Insurance Company Limited is in appeal against the award dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (hereinafter "the Tribunal" for short) in File No.170/Claim titled Zahoora Begum and others v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby a sum of Rs.22,62,166/- has been awarded to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Mohd. Ameen Malik.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the impugned award are; that on 09.03.2015, respondent No.8 had driven the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ-09/PB-0081-M-2011 in a rash and negligent manner at Sabzi Mandi New Delhi, as a result whereof one Mohd. Ameen Malik, who was unloading the luggage of the passengers from the offending vehicle, fell down and sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. Widow, three minor children and parents of the deceased Mohd. Ameen Malik filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. The claim made by the claimants was resisted by the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 7 and 8 by filing their objections. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed following issues:-
"1. Whether deceased Mohd. Amin Malik died as a result of injuries received in a Road Traffic Accident on 10.03.2015 at Sabzi Mandi Tis Hazari New Delhi falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sabzi Mandi New Delhi, involving vehicle No.Rj-09/PB-0081 M-2011 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation in terms of M.V.Act, and if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of accident in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver is not having a avlid license, thus respondent insurance company is not liable to pay compensation?

4. Relief?"

(3.)In support of their claim, respondent Nos.1 and 5 besides appearing themselves as their witness examined one Mohd. Saleem. On the other hand, Udhey Bhan, attorney holder of the owner and driver of the vehicle have been examined as defence witnesses.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.