SHAKUNTALA DEVI PARAKH Vs. SUBHASH SABATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the impugned award dated 31-12-2003 passed by IV Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 75/2002, dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants who were legal heirs/representatives of the deceased. The deceased was owner and one of the occupants of the vehicle in question. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that on 6-4-2001, deceased Gyanchand Parakh alongwith his daughter and other relatives was coming from Raipur to Jagdalpur in a Car bearing Regn. No. M.P. 25-C/0036. Respondent no. 2 was the insurer of the vehicle. On the way at about 4.00 a.m., the said vehicle, which was being driven by respondent no. 1 Subhash Sabath in a rash and negligent manner, struck against a tree near P.T.S. godown Boregaon due to which all passengers sustained injuries. They were brought to R.N.T. Hospital, Kondagaon where Gyanchand Parakh expired. A three months child Khyati Surana also died in the said accident and others sustained grievous injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years, he was running a wholesale business of Agricultural equipments for the entire district and was earning Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. The claimants being dependents/ legal representatives have filed Claim Petition u/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the award of a total compensation of Rs. 37,00,000/- on various heads.

(2.) The learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and material and evidence on record has held that the Car bearing Regn. No. C.G. 16/0611 driven by non-applicant no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, struck against the tree, as a result of which, Gyan Parakh died; the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2; the driver was having valid and effective driving licence. However, learned Claims Tribunal after considering the objections made by the Insurance Company in respect of non-payment of premium for the owner of the vehicle rejected the claim of the appellants who were legal representatives of the deceased/ owner of the said vehicle.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the Tribunal.