ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GUDDI DEVI
LAWS(J&K)-2006-5-7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on May 31,2006

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
GUDDI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. - (1.) COMMON questions of law are involved in all the appeals titled above and require to be determined by a common judgment. Accordingly, I deem it proper to decide all the appeals titled above by this common judgment.
(2.) CIMA Nos. 206/2005, 207/2005, 208/2005, 209/2005. 210/2005, 211/2005, 212/2005 and 213/2005 are directed against the award dated 6-8-2005 passed by Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Doda in claim petition Nos. 46/Claim, 49/Claim, 45/Claim, 51/Claim, 53/Claim, 48/Claim, 52/Claim and 50/Claim which shall be referred hereinafter as impugned award. It is necessary to note brief facts of the cases, the wombs of which has given birth to these appeals.
(3.) IT appears that claimants filed claim petitions referred to hereinabove, being the victims of vehicular accident, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda on the ground that driver namely, Ghulam Rasool Butt has driven Vehicle No. JK-06-602 (Matador), rashly and negligently and caused accident. The passengers (deceased) travelling in the vehicle sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Respondents arrayed in the claim petitions appeared and filed their objections. The following issue came to be framed. It is profitable to reproduce issues framed in one of the claim petitions herein as under :- "1. Whether deceased Mohd Yaseen husband of petitioner died on 30-11-2002 while traveling in a Vehicle No. JK 06-602 which met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Ghulam Rasool Butt near Napli on Batote Kishtwar road (NHIB) ? OPPs. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the quantum of compensation which the petitioners are entitled to and how ? OPPs. 3. Who is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners ? 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 is not liable to indemnify the petitioners for the death of Mohd Yassen as the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence ? OR-1. 5. Whether respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners on account of the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy ? OPR-1. 6. Relief, which the petitioners are entitled ? ;


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