ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO Vs. SUMITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') questioning the propriety of the award impugned dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') Manendragarh, District Koriya in Claim Case No. 163/2011, by which, the learned Claims Tribunal while fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company has awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,36,428 with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.05.2011 at about 8:00 PM, deceased Surendra Singh was coming from village Amka to his vilage Chhuri by his cycle and at the relevant time, he was dashed vehemently by the offending vehicle "Tractor" attached with its trolley bearing its registration Nos. C.G.-15-A-6476 and C.G.-15-A-6964 respectively. The vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by Non-applicant No.1-Saroj Kumar Singh, owned by Nonapplicant No.2-Sudhanshu Jaiswal and it was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company. According to the Claim Petition, the deceased was a driver and running a poultry form, in which, he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is pleaded further that on account of the alleged accident, the claimants are entitled to receive total compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,60,000/-.

(3.) The aforesaid claim has been contested by Non-applicants No. 1 & 2, driver and owner of the vehicle in question by submitting inter alia that no accident as such occurred with their vehicle and pleaded further that the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged accident as his cycle was dashed with the stone and because of it, he fell down and sustained the said injuries. Non-applicant No. 3/Appellant, the Insurance Company, while contesting the aforesaid claim stated that the deceased was travelling at the relevant time in the Tractor as Barati and pleaded further that the said vehicle was insured exclusively for the agricultural purposes. However, it was used for other purposes by carrying passengers and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable as the deceased was travelling as Barati. It is contested further on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the insurance company.