R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, the appellant, is aggrieved by the award dt. 13.06.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Malpura (Tonk), whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 3,13,000/ - along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e. from 10.06.2008, to the claimant respondents. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.06.2008 Mahaveer, who is the grandson of claimant respondent No. 1, and the brother of claimant respondent Nos. 2 and 4, was travelling in a pick -up truck from Alwar to Jaipur. In the pick -up truck, he along with Raju, Sanwariya and Duda Ram were carrying 60 bags of thermoplastic and a machine. Around two o'clock, when the said pick -up truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, near Thanagazi, the same turned turtle. Mahaveer came under the pick -up truck. Consequently, he sustained grievous injuries. During his treatment at the Thanagazi Hospital, he expired. Since he was the bread earner of the family, the claimant respondents filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate their case, they examined two witnesses including Duda Ram, an eyewitness of the accident, and submitted twenty documents. In turn, the Insurance Company examined a single witness, but did not submit any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned.
(2.) SINCE the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently contended that the Insurance Company had raised a few contentions before the learned Tribunal, namely that Mahaveer was not the owner of the goods but instead was travelling as a gratuitous passenger on the pick -up truck. Secondly, that instead of sitting within the cabin, he was sitting in the back of the pick -up truck. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for the payment of the compensation amount. However, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate both these contentions. Instead it has imagined that there would not be any space available for a person in the cabin of the pick -up truck, and has passed the impugned award on the basis of whim and caprice. Lastly, that since the claimant respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers and are major, they were not dependant upon the deceased. Therefore, the award needs to be interfered with.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned award and also considered the testimony of Duda Ram (A.W. 2), which has been submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant.;