- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the insurer of vehicle No. HR66/0523 against the judgment and award dated 16.02.2006 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Bageshwar in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Case No. 5 of 2005, Smt. Neema Parihar & others Vs Prem Prakash Sharda & others.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 06.08.2.004 at about 02.00 P.M. when the deceased - Umed Singh was going in a vehicle belonging to the Indian Army from Bhatinda to Suratgarh and when the said vehicle reached at Chotaula, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana, a truck bearing registration No. HR66/0523 com­ing from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the vehicle be­longing to Indian Army. On account of this accident Umed Singh sustained griev­ous injuries and he died. The age of Umed Singh at the time of the accident is alleged as 30 years in the claim petition and he was drawing salary of Rs. 6,787/- per month. The claimants on account of the death of Umed Singh, thus, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. The claim petition was decided ex-parte against the United India Insurance Company - insurer of vehicle No. HR66/0523 vide order dated 27.04.2005. There­after on application filed by the Insurance Company, the order was recalled and In­surance Company was given an opportu­nity to be heard. The Insurance Company filed the written statement pleading therein that the claim petition has been filed by the claimants in connivance with the owner of the truck involved in the acci­dent. The other plea taken in the written statement that the driver was not in pos­session of the valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the amount claimed is too excessive. Another ground taken by the Insurance Company is that the accident is a result of contributory negligence of the driver of both the vehi­cles involved in this accident but the claim­ants have not arrayed the Union of India and the driver of the vehicle belonging to Indian Army in the claim petition deliber­ately. The respondent No. 5 Smt. Basanti Devi is the mother of the deceased and she has also filed the written statement supporting the case of the claimants.
(3.) THE Union of India was subse­quently arrayed in the claim petition as opposite party No. 4 vide court's order dated 23.07.2005. The number of Indian Army vehicle No. 03D154187-A was incor­porated in the paragraph 15 of the claim petition through amendment, but the Un­ion of India has not filed any written state­ment before the Tribunal. The Tribunal af­ter having perused the pleadings adduced by the parties framed following issues : 1) Whether on 06.08.2004 at about 02:00 a.m. the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. HR66/0523 at Chatola, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana? If so, its effect? 2) Whether Umed Singh has died due to the injuries sustained by him on above date, time and place of the accident? If so, its effect? 3) To what amount of compensa­tion the claimants are entitled to get and from whom? 4) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any other relief? 5) Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in breach of policy as mentioned in WS filed by re­spondent No. 2 in para 18? If so, its effect? 6) Whether the vehicle in question was not having valid vehicle chalan certificate, registration cer­tificate, insurance certificate and other certificates on the date of accident? If so, its effect? 7) Whether the driver of the offend­ing vehicle was not having the valid driving licence? If so, its effect? ;