GEETA YADAV Vs. DHANNULAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988) questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 57/2013, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the claim in part, awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,12,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. While, Non-applicants No.1 and 2, i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle in question have raised cross-objection enumerated under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the CPC) questioning the exoneration of the insurance company from its liability. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Tribunal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22.11.2013 at 5:00 pm, deceased Namdev Yadav was returning to his village Sathgaon while travelling in the vehicle in question, namely Tata Magic bearing Registration No. C.G-17-T-1629, which was owned by Non-applicant No. 2 Sukrat and insured with Non-applicant No.3 Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Limited. At the relevant time, it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Dhannulal Yadav, owing to which, it dashed against the cattle and then tree and fell down in the nearby ditch of field. As a result of the alleged accident, deceased was injured badly and died on the spot, giving rise to the institution of the claim petition enumerated under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, by the legal representatives of the deceased. It is alleged in the claim petition that the deceased, a 28 years old, was a milk vendor and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and thus total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.57,40,000/- has been claimed under various heads.

(3.) Non-Applicants No.1 and 2, driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle have contested the aforesaid claim on the ground that the vehicle in question was duly insured with Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Limited and was being used in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the said policy, therefore, in case of any liability being fastened, the same could be indemnified by the said company. While the insurer of it has contested the claim mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was insured as a commercial vehicle-passenger-comprehensive policy and was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of its policy as the driver of it was neither holding the effective and valid driving licence nor was it being used with valid permit.