- (1.) The present appeal has been filed against the Award dated 17.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in Claim Petition No. 3 of 2003 filed by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on account of death of Sidhpal Patel in an accident which took place on 10th July, 2002 at about 4.00 a.m. The case of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was that the said Sidhpal Patel was going for selling vegetables (Arui) in Allahabad Mandi on the vehicle in question (namely, Truck No. UP-72-A-6967); and that as soon as the vehicle in question reached Nava Purva Dhal, Allahabad Phaphamau Bridge, the vehicle in question overturned on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question resulting in serious injuries to the said Sidhpal Patel; and that the said Sidhpal Patel was taken to Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital where the said Sidhpal Patel died.
(2.) The claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as by the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 5 herein) by filing written statements.
(3.) The Tribunal framed five issues in the claim petition. Issue No. 1 was regarding factum of accident occurring due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question. The Tribunal decided the said Issue holding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question resulting in overturned of the vehicle in question on account of loss of control over the same, and as a result of the said accident, the said Sidhpal Patel who was going to sell vegetables (Arui) in Allahabad Mandi sustained injuries, which resulted in his death. Issue No. 2 was as to whether the driver of the vehicle in question was having valid and effective licence on the date and time of the accident in question. The Tribunal held that the driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective licence on the date and time of the accident. Issue No. 3 was as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company on the date and time of the accident. The Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company on the date and time of the accident. Issue No. 5 was as to whether the deceased Sidhpal Patel was traveling on the vehicle in question as a gratuitous passenger and the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation as the deceased Sidhpal Patel was not a third party. The Tribunal held that the deceased Sidhpal Patel was the owner of the vegetables (Arui) which were being carried on the vehicle in question, and as such, the deceased Sidhpal Patel would be covered in the category of authorized person, and he could not be treated to be a gratuitous passenger. As such, the appellant-Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. However, as the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 5 herein) was not having permit and fitness certificate in respect of the vehicle in question, the appellant-Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of compensation in the first instance, and would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 5 herein). Issue No. 4 was as to whether the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were entitled to payment of any compensation, and if so, as to What was the amount of such compensation and against which opposite party. The Tribunal held that the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were entitled to payment of Rs. 2,13,500/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as per the directions given in the impugned Award. It was further held that after paying the entire amount of compensation, the appellant-Insurance Company would have right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 5 herein) by taking legal proceedings.;