SEEMA ARYA Vs. SUDHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of the order dated 14/10/2005 of the motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The facts of the case in nutshell for the proper appreciation of the matter are as follows:

(2.) ON 10. 3. 2003 the deceased late Sh. Satya Deo Singh after loading embroidery material from M/s H. S. Embroidery, B-43, sector-57, Noida in Vikram tempo bearing registration No. HR 38h 4598 was travelling in the said tempo as caretaker of the material/goods, which were to be transported to the factory of his employer at Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana at about 10:30pm. When the said tempo reached near Mukhmailpur, traffic signal on the GTK Road an accident occured and the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Sh. Pradeep Gupta, counsel for the appellant contended that the learned tribunal committed an error in concluding that the deceased was neither an owner nor a care-taker of the goods when in fact there was sufficient material on record to prove that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a caretaker of the goods loaded from H. S. Embroidery, B-43, Sector-57, Noida and were being taken to the factory of the owner at Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana. The counsel also submitted that the Insurance company did not lead any evidence whatsoever to demolish the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling as a caretaker of the goods in the tempo, therefore, it was urged by the counsel that the tribunal erred in concluding that the deceased was neither owner nor a care taker of the goods. The counsel also urged that the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that Sh. Karam Singh, driver nowhere stated in the

(3.) FIR that the deceased was not the caretaker of the goods in question, rather he had specifically mentioned that the goods were loaded by the deceased from the factory of H. S. Embroidery, Noida for the purpose of transporting the same to its own factory at Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana, therefore, the tribunal wrongly treated the deceased as a gratuitous passenger. The counsel averred that as per the insurance policy, the insurance company is obligated to honour all the statutory obligations arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel contended that since the deceased was sitting as a caretaker for transporting the goods from Noida to Kundli, then in terms of the provisions of Section 147 of the MV Act, the insurance company was duty bound to honour 100% liability/award amount as awarded by the tribunal to the extent of Rs. 4. 25 lacs as the liability of the insurance company was unlimited and even if the liability of the insurer is raised up to Rs. 7,50,000/- then also the insurer alone would be liable. The counsel further submitted that the tribunal erred in not noticing that the appellant is a lady belonging to a poor family and is herself trying to adjust in Delhi by taking all sorts of strains and is not in a position to take financial liabilities, to satisfy the impugned award. The counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the appellant without service of any notice on the appellant. The counsel further urged that the summons were served on the appellant as a witness on behalf of the insurance company for giving her statement and throughout she was never informed by the court that she was also a contesting party to the claim proceedings. The counsel further submitted that the appellant gave the statement in verbatim as was told to her by the insurance company without knowing that even she could be held liable to pay the compensation amount. It was contended by the counsel that she was made to understand by the insurance company that for the liability to fall on them, they required her statement.