ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BALADIN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. impugns the award dated 03.06.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a petition under Sec. 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant are: -

(3.) During inquiry before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1 filed his own affidavit Ex. PW -1/A. He testified that he and the deceased were travelling with their luggage on the hired Tempo (Vikram) bearing No.DL -1LH -4740. When the vehicle reached Bachchan Park, Noida the front wheel of the vehicle got punctured (resulting in the accident). A DD No.4B dated 11.10.2007 was registered at P.S. Dilshad Garden in respect of the accident. The Respondent No.1 was cross -examined on behalf of Respondent No.7, the driver/ owner of the vehicle as also by the Appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. A suggestion was given to Respondent No.1 that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident was denied by him. Respondent No.7 (Chander Pal, who was Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal) did not enter the witness box to rebut Respondent No.1's (claimant's) testimony. In cross -examination of PW -1 on behalf of Insurance Co. no suggestion was given that Respondent No.1 himself was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Rather it was suggested to him that driver lost balance as he was sitting next to the driver. Another suggestion was given to Respondent No.1 (PW -1) that the accident took place on account of the overloading of the Vikram. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly reached the conclusion that the accident took place on account of involvement of Vikram Tempo No.DL -1LH -4740.