SUNITA SURYAVANSHI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the impugned award dtd. 4/9/2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dist. Kabirdham(C.G.) (for short, 'the Tribunal) in M.A.C.C.No.40/15, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the story is that on 17/10/2014, the deceased Brijlal, who was working as Assistant Veterinary Officer in Surajpur (Forest), P.S. Sahaspur Loahra, after attending departmental meeting was returning to his house located at Kopobhata by driving his own motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.-07-LH-0544, at that time, near village Narodhi, some unknown vehicle dashed the motorcycle being driven by the deceased, due to such dash, he fell down and received injuries on his head and some internal parts of his body. Immediately after the incident, he was brought to the Hospital situated at Sahaspur Lohara from there he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bhilai, where he succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment on 9/11/2014. On account of sad and sudden demise of Brijlal, a claim petition was filed by the claimants against the insurer of the alleged motorcycle under Sec. 163-A of the Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.89,00,000.00 under various heads.

(3.) The respondent/insurance company took a defence that the accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased, for which, he himself was responsible; the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of incident; the liability of indemnifying the insurance company can be imposed only under the terms of the policy and policy of insurance would be void immediately if the terms of the policy are violated; the burden of proof is on the applicants that the deceased was driving the vehicle in question with a valid driving license which is not established by the documents produced in this case; the deceased himself was the owner and driver of the motorcycle, therefore, he does not fall in the category of third party whereas Sec. 163-A of the Act, 1988 deals with third party directly, as such, no liability could be fastened upon it.