S. N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and award dated 27.11.2014, passed in Compensation Case No. 43 of 2005.
(3.) As per the factual matrix, the deceased, Rupesh Kumar, died as a result of motor vehicle accident which took place on 01.06.2002, while he was going to Khalari for supplying dairy products by Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg. No. BR-14P-1092. In the midst of journey, he fell down from the said Auto and sustained severe and grievous injuries on his person, which has resulted into his death. Thereafter, the legal heirs of late Rupesh Kumar filed Compensation Case for payment of Rs.4.00 lakhs. It is claimed by the Claimants that at the time of death, the deceased was earning Rs.4500/- and the Claimants are solely dependent upon his earnings. Opposite Party No. 1 appeared in the said Compensation Case and stated that he had already transferred the vehicle in question prior to the date of accident and on the particular date, it stood in the name of opposite party No. 3, Ram Kumar Tiwary. However, Ram Kumar Tiwary did not appear in the said case and vide order dated 11.03.2011, the case was posted exparte against the said Ram Kumar Tiwary. Further, the opposite party No. 2, Insurance Co. filed its written statements. In the written statements, the defence of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties were taken by the Insurance Co. It was also stated that as per the F.I.R., the Auto Rickshaw was meant for carrying passenger but it was used for carrying goods. As such, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was also stated that the extra premium for the driver was paid but on going through the F.I.R. it is apparent that the deceased was shown as Khalasi and hence, the Insurance Co. is not liable to indemnify the Owner on account of death of Khalasi. It was also stated that the transfer of the vehicle was not notified and as such, the new purchaser is not liable to be indemnified by the present Insurance Co.;