MAHENDRA SINGH HORA Vs. ANITA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle, truck bearing registration No. CG 04 JA 8163, assailing the award dated 21-4-2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bemetara granting compensation of Rs. 4,55,000/- to the claimants/ respondents No. 1 to 7 on their application under Section 166 of the Act. The Claims Tribunal has absolved the insurance company from liability of satisfying the award. Facts of the case, as narrated in the claim petition, in short, are that the deceased along with other Hammals were returning to Village Siltara from Akoli Road after unloading fertilizer on 6-6-2008 and when the vehicle reached at Gidhauri Road, the driver of the vehicle respondent No. 8 Avinash Kumar Yadav drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the deceased came into contact with an overhead electrical wire and died because of electrocution. An offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Hammal and was earning Rs. 200/- per day. On account of death of the deceased, the claimants lost the sole bread winner of the family, therefore, they claimed total compensation of Rs. 20,35,000/- on various heads.

(2.) The owner and the driver denied the accident as also the income of the deceased. As the vehicle was insured, the said owner and the driver further stated that the liability for payment of compensation is that of the insurance company.

(3.) The insurance company/respondent No. 9 herein denied its liability on the ground that 8 persons were travelling in the vehicle, which is contrary to the terms of the policy and that the present is not a case of motor accident but the deceased died because of electrocution.