- (1.) The appellants are aggrieved by award dated 29.2.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, and Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal had granted a compensation of Rs. 8,59,450/-, along with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition i.e 7.5.2002 to them. While exonerating the Finance, and the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has directed the driver of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.2.2002, around 7:30 PM, Surajmal was riding a motorcycle, bearing Registration No. RJ-14-34M-1029 as a pillion rider. Since the motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently by Prabhu Narayan-respondent No. 1, it slipped on the road near Kali Kothi ki Dhani. Consequently, Surajmal suffered grievous injuries. Subsequently, on 30.1.2002 he succumbed to the injuries. Due to his death, his dependants - the wife, children and mother- (the appellants before this Court) filed a claim petition against the driver of the offending vehicle, the financing company of the offending vehicle, and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle before the learned Tribunal. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as mentioned above. But the learned Tribunal absolved both the Finance Company, and the Insurance Company from the liability of having to pay the compensation. The liability is fastened only on the diver of the offending vehicle. The appellants are not just aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, but more so by the letting off of the finance company and the Insurance Company their liability to pay the compensation.
(2.) Mr. Sandeep Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, that according to the evidence submitted the motorcycle, bearing Registration No. RJ-14-34M 1029, was financed by the Tata Finance Company. According to the hire-purchase agreement as well as according to the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 ('thee Act of 1972' for short), it is the finance company that is the "owner" of the said vehicle. Hence, respondent No. 2, the Tata Finance Company was the "owner" of the offending vehicle. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in absolving respondent No. 2, the Tata Finance Company, of its liability to pay the compensation. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has brought both the Hire-Purchase agreement and the Act of 1972 to the notice of this Court.
(3.) Secondly, that according to the insurance policy (Exhibit NA.1), it was a comprehensive policy and not merely a third party policy. According to the learned counsel, the insurance policy (Exhibit NA.1), clearly indicates that it was "an own damage policy" as well as a policy for "liability to public". At the bottom of the policy it clearly reads as "comprehensive premium (A+B)". Therefore, the policy would not only cover the damage caused to the vehicle, but most importantly would also cover the death of the deceased. Hence the Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the insurance policy (Exhibit NA.1) was merely "a third party policy". Thus the policy does not cover the owner's death.;