- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta and Shri Rajesh Nath for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) THE present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the impugned award dated 27-2-2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raebareily/6th Additional Judge, rejecting the appellants' claim with regard to compensation, claimed under section 166 read with section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In brief, on 2-1-2001 the deceased Shri Dinesh Kumar while driving the Jeep No. U.P. 33 B 4045 suffered with an accident on Lucknow Raebareilly road near Kundanganj. The Jeep is owned and possessed by one Shri Raj Bahadur. The wife, son, daughter and parents of deceased Dinesh Kumar(appellants) had approached the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for payment of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to claimants the monthly income of deceased was Rs. 5,000/- per month. A defence was taken by the respondents that accident occurred because of fault of Shri Dinesh Kumar himself hence no compensation is payable. Also a defence was taken with the pleading that even otherwise in case the dependants of Dinesh Kumar are entitled for compensation then they should approach the competent authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Tribunal had framed the following issues for adjudication : 1. Whether on 2-1-2001 on Lucknow Raebareli road near Kundanganj the Vehicle No. 33B 4045 suffered with an accident and in consequence to which the Dinesh Kumar succumbed to injuries at the spot. 2. Whether the vehicle No. U.P. 33 B 4045 is suffered to accident on 22-1-2001 was insured with the national insurance company (respondent No. 2). 3. Whether the driver of the Jeep another Jeep No. 33 B 4045 was having valid licence on the date of accident in case yes then it is correct. 4. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation. In case, yes, then what should be quantum of compensation.
(3.) IT has been not disputed that the vehicle in question namely UP 33 B 4045 met with an accident on 22-1-2001. In the written statement filed by the respondents the occurrence of accident has been admitted. However, defence has been taken by the respondents that the accident occurred because of fault on the part of deceased Dinesh Kumar himself. Deceased Dinesh Kumar succumbed to injuries at the spot. It has been not disputed before Tribunal that Dinesh Kumar was having valid driving licence and he was driving the Jeep in the night when he suffered the accident. However, the Tribunal arrived to the conclusion that since Dinesh Kumar himself was at fault the dependants are not entitled for payment of any compensation. The Tribunal further recorded a finding while deciding issue No. 3 that the deceased Dinesh Kumar, driver of the Jeep was having driving licence which was valid from 14-6-1999 to 6-4- 2018. At the time of death, the age of the Dinesh Kumar was 30 years 8 months. The Tribunal observed that the income of the deceased may not be five thousand per month on account of fact that in every month his discharge of duty was not more than 15 days.;