ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited impugns a judgment dated 20.10.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby in a Petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), a compensation of Rs.7,00,000.00 was awarded in favour of the Respondents No.1 and 3 for the death of Manoj Kumar who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 08.12.2005.

(2.) DURING inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, the First Respondent Manju filed her Affidavit Ex.PW-1/A testifying that her husband was aged 26 years and was working as a driver with Respondent No.4 Lal Chand at the time of the accident. She deposed that he used to earn Rs.40,000.00 per annum. The First Respondent's testimony with regard to the deceased's employment or the quantum of salary was not challenged in cross-examination.

(3.) IT is true that the deceased was not a third party as he himself was the driver of the car No.DL-3C-AD-5404 which met with an accident. The manner of the accident is stated in the FIR Ex.PW-1/1 and was dealt with by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred as few Neelgais came on the road from the fields on the left side and in order to save them, the deceased driver struck the car against a tree. In the absence of any suggestion with regard to the manner of the accident, the Claims Tribunal rightly held that it could not be said that the accident was caused on account of deceased's own negligence. A copy of the cover note is available on the Trial Court record which shows that a sum of Rs.25.00 was paid by the insured to cover the liability (under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 of the driver) (IMT-28). As per IMT-28 issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee, the legal liability to paid driver, etc. is covered as under:-