S. N. Pathak, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of Judgement/Award dated 19.09.2012 (modified on 10.10.2012), passed by learned District Judge-VI-cum-MACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.60 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the claim application of the claimants and has held that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 13,18,100/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the application inspite of the fact that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence.
(2.) The facts of the case as per the claim application is that claimants are legal heirs of the deceased Pintu Yadav @ Jai Prakash Yadav. On 14.01.2008 at about 6:30 pm, the deceased and his brother in law were coming from Tetulmari to Dhanbad by driving their respective motorcycles and the driver of the offending Tanker bearing Regn. No. BR-10H 8452 lost control over the said Tanker due to rash and negligent driving and as a result of which, dashed the same against the Hero Honda C.D. Delux Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. JH 10 P 2699 which was being driven by the deceased and in consequence thereof, the deceased along with his motorcycle fell down and crushed under the wheels of the said tanker sustained grievous injuries. When the deceased was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. At the time of alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years. The deceased was working as a driver and was sole bread earner of the family and all the petitioners were dependents upon his income. An FIR bearing No.02/08 under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered at Jogta (Loyabad) Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle.
(3.) The Insurance Company had filed his detailed written statements whereas Respondent No.1, owner of the offending Tanker filed reply of Show Cause and submitted that the offending Tanker bearing Regn. No. BR-10 H 8452 did not meet with any accident and was fully insured with respondent No. 2 vide Policy No. 210300/31/07/02/00000946 covering the period w.e.f. 28/12/07 to 27/12/2008. The Insurance Company/appellant also filed its written statement and took various preliminary objections. It is stated that no accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the driver of the offending tanker and the owner of the motorcycle were not impleaded in the array of the respondent. It is further stated that respondent-insurance company is protected u/S 147 and 149 of the M.V. Act. However, in para 17 of the written statement, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 at the relevant time. It is further stated that the driver of the motorcycle i.e. the deceased was solely at fault and accident in question happened due to his mistake.;