CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BHUDDA KUMAR JAMATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Sec. 168 of the Act, by the appellant, Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dtd. 17/6/2019 passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No. 2, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, Tripura, on case No. T.S.(MAC) 18 of 2017.

(2.) For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of T.S.(MAC) 18 of 2017. The claim petition discloses the fact that on 16/6/2016 at about 8.30 a.m deceased Brajendra Jamatia was going to his house from Rani panchayat Chowmohani on foot keeping left side of the road and at that time, a Commander Jeep vehicle bearing No. TR-01-2323 came from right side to left side and dashed the deceased resulting to grievous injuries on his various parts of body and soon after the accident the deceased was taken to Kakraban PHC and considering the gravity of injuries he was referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital, Agartala where he died due to multiple grievous injuries. In the claim petition it was specifically pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid Commander Jeep. It was again pleaded that the deceased Brajendra Jamatia was 60 years old and used to earn Rs.10,000.00 per month and thus; the claimants claimed Rs.10,00,000.00 as compensation under various heads.

(3.) On receipt of summons, all the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their written statements. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 the owner and driver of the aforesaid vehicle in their written statement denied all the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that the OP No. 1 was the owner of vehicle bearing No. TR-01- 2323(Commander Jeep) and it was duly insured with OP No. 3 with policy bearing No. 3374/00318653/000/01 with validity from 15/5/2016 to 14/5/2017 and the vehicle was also driven by OP No. 2 having valid driving license bearing DL No. TR-03200900005211. It was also pleaded that there was no fault on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the accident also did not occur because of their fault and so they denied their liability.