- (1.) This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 10.08.2007, passed by the learned Judge, MACT (District Judge), Jhunjhunu in MACT Case No.430/2006, titled Smt. Sunita & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants-respondents Nos.1 & 2 along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petitioner till the payment of the compensation and fixed the liability of all the non-claimants i.e. the appellant-Insurance Company and respondent Nos.3 to 6, for the payment of compensation jointly and severally.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants-respondent Nos.1 & 2 (hereinafter 'the claimants') under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Jhunjhunu (hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') stating therein that on 26.12.2005, the deceased Ashok Kumar was travelling on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-18/1M-8284 along with rider thereof from Surajgarh to Kasni. At the first crossing, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.HR-20/C-6167 came from the opposite direction being rashly and negligently ridden and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased Ashok Kumar was travelling. In spite of being taken to Chirawa Hospital, from where Ashok Kumar (now deceased) was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, where he died on 14.01.2006 during the course of treatment. The report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station and an FIR registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the riders of both the motorcycles involved in the accident finding the case of composite negligence. It was further stated in the claim petition that the motorcycle No.RJ-18/1M-8284 was being ridden by respondent No.3 (non-claimant No.1), it was owned by the respondent No.4 (non-claimant No.2) and was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company (non-claimant No.3) while motorcycle No.HR-20/C-6167 was being ridden by respondent No.5 (non-claimant No.4) and it was owned by respondent No.6 (non-claimant No.5). The respondent Nos.5 & 6, the rider and the owner respectively of motorcycle No.HR-20/C-6167 remained ex-parte.
(3.) The insurer of motorcycle No.RJ-18/1M-8284, i.e. the appellant-Insurance Company (non-claimant No.3 before the learned Tribunal) filed a reply to the claim petition and denied the material facts stating in defence that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle No.RJ-18/1M-8284 which was insured with it. It was further stated that the risk of pillion rider would not be covered under the policy and since the deceased Ashok Kumar was a pillion rider, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable for compensation claimable on the death of Ashok Kumar.;