Dr. B.S. Chauhan & Dilip Gupta, JJ. - (1.) This first appeal from order has been filed against the award dated 17.1.2006 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Etawah (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal').
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 27.5.2000 at 7 a.m., one Longshree, while crossing the road to fetch water from a well, met an accident with truck No. URN 9516 which was being driven rashly and negligently and died on the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver. His documents were seized and after holding the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver for rash and negligent driving under section 279 read with section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The husband of the said deceased, Krishna Murari had filed a claim petition, being the Claim Petition No. 377 of 2000 under sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act') impleading one Rajesh Kumar Jain as defendant No. 1 in the case, who was insured and the present appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the insurer') as defendant No. 2. The present appellant insurer has taken large number of pleas in its defence including that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by a person not holding a valid driving licence and the vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident. Large number of issues were framed including issues on the aforesaid two points/grounds taken by the present appellant. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the onus to prove that the vehicle was driven by a person who was not having a valid licence was upon the present appellant and he failed to prove it. Another relevant issue regarding the insurance, the finding on that has been recorded that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured. After recording the findings on the aforesaid issues, a compensation of Rs. 2,13,000 was awarded by the Claims Tribunal for the loss/death of wife of the claimant observing that at the time of death, the age of deceased was only 22 years and her notional income was calculated at Rs. 1,500 per month, being a housewife, giving 17 multipliers.
(3.) Mr. Saral Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised only issue as to whether the vehicle was being driven by the person having a valid licence or not. The said issue has been decided by the learned Tribunal against the insurer.;