Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) This miscellaneous appeal, by the opposite party No. 3 appellant-Insurance Company, is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.5.2011 passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla in Motor M.A.C. Case No. 50 of 2008, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,33,000/- to the claimants-respondent No. 1 to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company, for the death of husband of claimant-Muni Devi caused in the motor vehicle accident.
(3.) The facts, involved in this case, in brief, is that on 11.1.2008 one Chhotu Baraik, who is said to be the Khalasi of one Mahindra Savari Jeep bearing Registration No. JH07B 0862, and other persons were going on in the said Jeep and on the way near Tango Mission School due to rash and negligent driving of the driver at 12:30 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident by which one passenger of the vehicle died at the spot and the said Chhotu Baraik and other passengers sustained injury and were referred to RIMS, Ranchi for better treatment by the Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on the way Chhotu Baraik succumbed to the injuries he sustained in the said accident. The said Mahindira Jeep was owned by the opposite party No. 1-Manish Kumar and opposite party No. 2-Ram Lakhan Singh was the driver of the said vehicle at the time of the said accident. Opposite party No. 3 of the claim petition is the Insurance Company which insured the vehicle involved in the accident being the Mahindira Jeep. The claimants, who are the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of this misc. appeal, are the wife, son and daughter respectively of said Chhotu Baraik. Before the Tribunal, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement in which they denied that Chhotu Baraik who died in connection with an accident with the vehicle of the opposite party No. 1, was employed by him. They also took the plea that the vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 2 was having a valid professional LMV driving licence. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 also pleaded that opposite party No. 1 verified the driving licence from the DTO office, Gumla and found the driving licence valid from the DTO office, Gumla. Opposite party No. 1 also found that the driving licence was renewed by the DTO office, Gumla and opposite party No. 1 before employing opposite party No. 2 verified his skill by taking the driving test by making the opposite party No. 2 drive the said vehicle with him up to 50 km.;