S.P.MEHROTRA,RAJESH CHANDRA,J - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 27.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut, in Motor Accident Claim petition no. 981 of 2005, filed by the claimant-respondents no. 1 and 2 on account of the death of Krishan Lal, in an accident on 9/9/2005 at about 10 O'clock in the morning.
(2.) IT was, interalia, stated in the claim petition by the claimants-respondents no. 1 and 2, that the said Krishan Lal, husband of the claimant-respondent no.1, along with five others was going in Maruti Car No. P.B.-08- AR-6119 from Jallandhar to Chandigarh on 9.9.2005 at about 10 O'clock in the morning; and that when the car reached near village Piniyali Khurd Wine Shop, near Police Chowki Kaithgarh, Police Station Balchor, District Navashahr, Punjab, truck no. H.R-37A-7659 driven by the Driver in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit the aforesaid Maruti Car. As a result of this accident, Krishna Lal sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. It was further stated by the claimants-respondents no.1 and 2 in the claim petition, that at the time of accident, Krishna Lal was about 29 years of age and he was doing the work of filing of returns of Income Tax, Sales Tax and UTI funds etc. and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. It was also alleged that at the time of accident, the aforesaid truck was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company and the owner of the truck was Harbhajan Singh, opposite party no.3 in the present appeal. Written statement was filed on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, wherein almost all the assertions made in the claim petition were denied. It was stated that the burden was on the claimants-respondents to prove that the aforesaid truck in question was being driven by the Driver rashly and negligently and Kisnan Lal (husband of the claimant respondent no.1) died due to the injuries sustained in the aforesaid accident. In the Additional Pleas, the Appellant-Insurance Company denied that the aforesaid truck in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company. It was also stated that the deceased was a resident of district Jallandhar, whereas the owner of the truck in question belonged to district Patiala and hence the jurisdiction pertained to Navashahr (Punjab); that the address given by the claimants- respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e. E-13, Shastri Nagar, Meerut, was prima facie wrong; and that the court at Meerut had no jurisdiction to decide the case. It was further stated that the aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car by its Driver, and the claim petition was not maintainable; and that the claim petition was defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties; and that the claimants-respondents were not legal representatives of the deceased and no death certificate was filed by the claimants-respondents; and that the Appellant-Insurance Company was wrongly made party to the claim petition; and that the claim petition was frivolous and was not legally maintainable; and that the claim petition was filed with concealment of actual facts; and that even if there was any liability of the Appellant-Insurance Company, it was very limited one; and that the claimants-respondents did not file any details regarding insurance of the truck in question with the Appellant-Insurance Company; that the so- called truck owner could not escape from his liability; and that the claim petition was not maintainable as against the Appellant-Insurance Company, and the same was liable to be dismissed with costs.
(3.) RESPONDENT no.3, Harbhajan Singh, the owner of the truck in question also filed his written statement denying almost all the assertions of the claim petition. This much, however, was admitted that the aforesaid truck belonged to him and that it was duly insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ambala City, Punjab. It was further stated that the Driver of the aforesaid truck in question was having valid driving licence, and the opposite party no.1 in the claim petition (Appellant-Insurance Company herein) was legally liable to pay the amount of compensation.;