J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) HEARD finally with the consent of the parties.
(2.) THE instant appeal U/Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is directed against the order of the MACT, Bundi dated 18.12.2004 passed in Claim Petition No. 198/2005. The brief facts as emerging in the instant appeal and on perusal of arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties are that on 28.8.2001 when deceased Jagdish was coming from Bundi on his bicycle, then a Tata Sumo bearing No. RJ -20/C -7640 came from Kota side which was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit Jagdish on account of which he received severe and grievous injuries and during the course of treatment he died. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District, Bundi upon which after investigation challan was filed in the competent court against non -petitioner No. 1. It was averred in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the age of deceased Jagdish was 45 years and he was earning Rs. 6,000/ - per month by doing the work of Mason, labourer and agriculture work. A total amount of Rs. 21,36,000/ - was claimed as compensation on all counts and it was prayed that at the time of accident non -petitioner No. 1 driver was under the employment of non -petitioner No. 2 and vehicle was insured with non -petitioner No. 3, therefore, they are liable to be pay the compensation jointly and severally.
(3.) THE non -petitioners Nos. 1 & 2 filed their reply stating therein that there was no fault on part of the driver of the offending vehicle and accident occurred due to fault of the deceased himself, therefore, they are not responsible for payment of compensation. In alternate, it was prayed that in case it was found that the claimants are entitled to get compensation then the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The non -petitioner No. 3 Insurance Company in their reply admitted that the vehicle was insured with them but denied that the said vehicle was not involved in the said accident. It was pleaded that at the time of the accident the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid licence. It was pleaded that the copy of the licence which was produced in the criminal case was issued after three days of the incident i.e. 31.8.2001 for driving light motor vehicle, therefore, at the time of accident, the driver was not having any licence and, therefore, it was against the conditions of Insurance Policy and they are not liable to pay any compensation.;