BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL Vs. NARENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 02.04.2010, Uday Chand, aged 34 years, employed as constable in Delhi Police was traveling as a passenger in car bearing No.DL 8CS 5774 (the car) driven by the first respondent at G T Road, Tiraha, Railway station, Police station Kotwali Chowki, Kirana Mandi, Ghaziabad, U.P. Sometime around 11.25 PM, there was a collision between the car and truck statedly bearing registration No.HR 38 1778 (the truck), in the consequence of which Uday Chand died. His dependent family members (parents), (appellants in MAC.APP.No.245/2013) instituted accident claim case (MAC petition No.239/10) on 21.05.2010 seeking compensation under Sections 140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). In the said proceedings, Narender Singh (the car driver), Parmal Singh (the owner of the car) and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant in MAC.APP.No.1208/2012) were impleaded as party respondents, the latter (the insurer) concededly having issued an insurance policy covering third party risk in respect of the car for the period in question. The claimants founded their case on the averments that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of the car.

(2.) The tribunal held inquiry and, by judgment dated 31.08.2012, upheld the case of the claimants about the accident having occurred due to negligent driving of the car and thereupon awarded compensation in the total sum of Rs.26,71,600/-. The insurer which was found liable to indemnify was asked by the tribunal to satisfy the award with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing till realization.

(3.) The insurer, by its appeal (MAC.APP.No.1208/2012), has questioned the finding recorded by the tribunal about negligence on the part of the car driver. Its contention is that the story of negligence of the car driver has been fabricated as the first respondent while lodging the first information report (FIR) No.228/10 in police station Ghaziabad Kotwali (certified copy at page 165 of the tribunal's record) had attributed negligence to the truck driver stating the said vehicle had come on the wrong side. It is the submission of the insurer in appeal that the tribunal fell into error by accepting the contrary version given by Mohan Pal (PW3), described as a vendor present at the scene of the occurrence.