RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. HARDEI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above -titled appeals have arisen out of a judgment rendered by the Tribunal concerned in different petitions instituted by the dependents of the deceased. All such petitions before the Tribunal arose out of the same accident which occurred in the morning hours of 9.12.2009 when the vehicle Max bearing No. UA -10 -4941 was skidded off from the main road and fell into a deep gorge beside the river. This unfortunate accident caused the death of total 12 persons including the driver who was within that vehicle. This has indisputably been proved, as also depicted in the report of the A.R.T.O. dated 10.12.2009 sent to the Transport Commissioner of the State with a copy to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. Different amounts of compensation were awarded by the Tribunal looking to the merits of each and every case and feeling dissatisfied, the insurance company has come up in appeals before the Court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for all concerned, and apart from giving the legal finding, the correctness about the evaluation of compensation would be looked into separately in each case.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the vehicle concerned was comprehensively covered under the insurance and the driver was having a valid driving licence. Since the vehicle, after being purchased, was registered on 7.4.2007, then it would be assumed that its fitness would also be in a good state. The registration certificate adverts that it could carry 10 passengers at a time, so for a moment if it is presumed that including the driver, it could have transported less number of passengers, then the permit, issued to such Max Cab, also shows the number of passengers to be 10, hence, it is obvious that the vehicle was carrying 2 passengers in addition to what was permitted under the registration certificate and the permit issued by the authority concerned.