- (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 7.7.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.959/1999 (219/1997).
(2.) Brief facts noticed are that on 1.7.1995 when the vehicle bearing no.HR38 2351, of which the deceased Bhag Chand was employed as a driver and he was driving the vehicle and going towards Nasik along with khallasi Puran Singh, when the vehicle reached at bridge no.291/50 over Kalki river on Manmad Road at about 2:30-3:00 A.M., at that particular time the vehicle lost balance and fell in a river, and on account of the said accident both the driver Bhag Chand and khallasi Puran Singh died. FIR was lodged. The claim petition was filed. The Tribunal framed five issues. However, issue no.1 was decided in favour of the claimant/appellants but insofar as issue nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they were decided against the claimants. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Shri V.V. Harit, the learned counsel for appellants contended that issue No.2 has merely been rejected only on account of the non production of registration certificate of the vehicle, while it is admitted that the vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company, and the Insurance Company also admits that the vehicle was insured in the name of the owner Praveen Kumar Samdani on the fateful day. Therefore, when prime necessity was that the vehicle ought to have been insured and in this case the vehicle was insured when the accident has taken place, the observation of the Tribunal in this regard is misconceived. He further contended that respondent No.1, owner, did not attend the proceedings despite repeated notices, as he was claimed to be in Nasik whereas the claimants are residents of Nasirabad. The claimants being widow and minor children, were unable to go to Nasik and to collect evidence. Even otherwise, he argues that once the insurance had been admitted by the Insurance Company that the vehicle was insured, the production of registration certificate looses significance. Thus, he contended that merely on this premise the claim has been disallowed. He contended that it is a case of death and on account of the said accident, the deceased died on the spot and the claimants are entitled for the benefits under the Motor Vehicles Act.;