D.N.Upadhyay,J. - (1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the judgment/award dated 23.7.2008 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Giridih-cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Giridih in connection with Claim Case No. 6 of 2003, whereby the claimant has been directed to be paid INR 2,74,184/- including interest @ 6% per annum i.e. INR 1,93,747/- (compensation amount) + INR 80437/- (interest till date of judgment) in lieu of the death of her son Ambika Rajak. The facts in brief is that on 19.11.2001 at about 20.15 hours, the deceased Ambika Rajak was going to Jamshedpur by his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. WB38G-2986 along with his relative Niraj. It is disclosed that near village Shankardih on National Highway No. 23, a truck bearing registration No. HR38BG-6244 being driven rashly and negligently coming from wrong direction, caused dash to the motorcycle, as a result Ambika Rajak and rider Niraj died. The respondent No. 1 who happens to be mother of the deceased filed an application for grant of compensation vide Claim Case No. 6 of 2003 and the learned Tribunal after adjudicating the matter passed impugned judgment.
(2.) The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant insurance company, has submitted that the owner of the truck, respondent No. 2 did not appear before the Tribunal and he did not file vehicular documents including driving license of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Since the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment without considering vehicular documents, the appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal. Since no vehicular document produced, the appellant could not get opportunity to go through and therefore he was not in a position to raise grievance whether the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy or not. Last but not the least, it is contended that recovery right may be given to the appellant so that the amount may be recovered from owner of the vehicle.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2 (owner of the vehicle), has submitted that he did not receive any notice and therefore he did not appear before the tribunal. It is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle also died in the accident and therefore it is not possible to produce the driving license, but so far as the other documents are concerned, he is ready to produce and prove the same. It is further contended that the vehicle was duly insured and therefore the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment directing the appellant insurance company to satisfy the awarded amount.;