GEETA JHA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V.Act) by the claimants questioning the award dated 09.12.2013, by which, the learned Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim in part, has awarded a total compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 3,92,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation by exonerating Respondent No.3/United Indian Insurance Company Limited from its liability.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 06.10.2011 at 8.45 PM an accident occurred when the deceased Gulshan Jha was returning from Bacheli to Jagdalpur along with his friend Shambhunath Mourya by Santro Car. At the relevant time, the Santro Car was dashed vehemently by the offending vehicle TATA 709, a "light goods vehicle", bearing registration No. CG-17/ZB/0116, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, namely, Santosh Kumar Sahu, respondent No.1 herein, owned by Tulsiram Yadav, respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/United India Insurance Company Limited. As a result of the said accident, Gulshan Jha died on the spot owing to injuries sustained by him. It is pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing the job of Agent of Life Insurance and also by performing as a Journalist. It was put forth that since the claimants are widow and two minor children, and therefore, they are entitled to obtain the amount of compensation for the death of sole bread earner in the motor accident occurred on 06.10.2011 and, thus the claimants have claimed total amount of compensation of Rs. 80,60,000/- on different heads.

(3.) Respondents No. 1 & 2, the driver and owner of the vehicle in question were treated as ex parte, while the insurance company, respondent No.3 herein, contested the claim mainly on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident, and therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. According to written statement, the driver of the said offending vehicle was possessing the licence of light motor vehicle, however, the vehicle in question was a light goods vehicle and the same was being driven by its driver, who was not holding effective and valid driving licence, and therefore, because of breach of policy, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation.