- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 12.09.2011 whereby the learned M.A.C.T., Barmer while deciding the Claim Case No.161/2010 has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,11,600/- with 9% interest from 01.10.2010 in favour of claimants on account of death of deceased Bharmal Ram.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents No.1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for claiming compensation on account of death of deceased Bharmal Ram in an accident, which took place on 18.05.2010. The deceased Bharmal Ram was travelling in pick-up Vehicle (GJ-1-BY-5225) in the capacity of labour along-with fifth respondent from Village Oagan to Village Anand. The said vehicle was driven by the fifth respondent (Naval Singh) in a rash and negligent manner, and due to negligent driving of the vehicle, the tyre of pick-up came out from the wheel and the vehicle turned over, which led to the grievous injuries to Bharmal Ram, resulting in the death of Bharmal Ram on spot. The claimants, therefore, filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.21,50,000/-. An FIR was also lodged for the said accident with Police Station and after usual investigation, the police filed challan against the respondents No. 5 and 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, is that the deceased labourer, namely, Bharmal Ram was sitting on the back side, open space of the Pick-up Vehicle in question and not in the cabin and, therefore, there was violation of policy conditions. However, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any specific term in the policy itself, which restricted the sitting of occupant of the vehicle at a particular place. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents-claimants and upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim in favour of claimants rejecting above contention of the appellant-insurance company in the absence of any specific term either in the M.V. Act or the relevant rules framed thereunder or in the insurance contract. Therefore, this cannot be a ground to deny reimbursement of the compensation by the appellant-Insurance Company. Consequently, the present misc. appeal of the appellant- Insurance Company is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as costs. A copy of this order be sent to respondents No.5 & 6 and learned Tribunal forthwith. No costs.;