LAWS(CHH)-2011-1-11

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KUSAL SELMA

Decided On January 11, 2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Kusal Selma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated 1-10-2003 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 37/2002 whereby an amount of Rs. 7,82,000/- has been awarded to the claimants holding the Appellant/Insurance Company also liable for its payment along with owner of the tractor.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 26-3-2002, when Jankilal Sahu (since deceased) was going on his scooter bearing registration No. MP 23 MB 2450 on left side slowly from Raipur to village Kosrangi, a tractor bearing registration No. CG-04-A/8709, owned by Respondent No. 2 and insured by the Appellant and trailer (trolley) No. MP 23/GA 0402, owned by the Respondent No. 3 and insured by the Respondent No. 4, being driven by Respondent No. 1 Kusal Selma in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his scooter, as a result of which, Jankilal Sahu sustained grievous injury and died. The accident was reported in Police Station Telibandha, Distt. Raipur, on the basis of which, the police registered offence under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of I.P.C. against the Respondent No. 1. The claimants being wife, children, sister and parents of the deceased preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased.

(3.) The Appellant/insurance company denied the allegation of the claim petition. It denied that the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased. Rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor resulting death of the deceased, and income of the deceased was also denied. It further took a plea that at the time of accident neither Jankilal Sahu nor driver of the tractor had valid driving licence and insurance companies of both the vehicles are responsible for payment of compensation, if any. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 also denied the allegations of the claim petition.