GITABEN DIPAKBHAI BHAGUBHAI GAMIT Vs. MAHENDRA SHARADBHAI VASAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal is Preferred by the original claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surat dtd. 21/8/2014 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.162 of 2008, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,93,500.00 with 9% interest p.a. by directing that liability of the Insurance Company-Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. cannot be fasted. Therefore, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are such that, on 14/3/2008, the deceased Dipakbhai was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-5-FA-6005. At about 11:30 p.m., he was going from Kamrej towards Surat. At that point of time, the driver of one truck bearing registration No. GJ-1-U-7016 came from behind, driving his truck in rash and negligent manner and dashed his truck with the motor cycle driven by deceased and due to that accident, deceased-Dipakbhai had fallen down on the road and sustained serious injuries. Therefore, he succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, a claim petition is filed under Sec. 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act to get compensation of Rs.4,35,500.00.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Hiren M. Modi for the appellants-original claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed gross error as the claimants are the third party to the other vehicle, who is tortfeasor. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from his liability to pay the amount of insurance to the claimants as the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the policy, which is produced on the record at Exh.61 is void ab initio. He has submitted from the discussion of para 9 in the impugned judgment, it clearly reveals that the witness was examined as the officer of the Insurance Company vide Exh.63. This witness has denied that the Insurance Company had verified the contents of the proposal form at the time of issuance. He has submitted that nothing has come on the record that the Insurance Company has verified the papers of R.T.O. It is submitted by Mr. Modi that appellants are the third party and it is the responsibility of the Insurance Company for all the proceedings done in respect of insurance of policy and transfer thereafter and claimants herein have nothing to do with the same. It is the case of the claimant that the Motors Vehicles Act is a social piece of legislation and its object is to see that the victims of road/vehicular accidents gets immediate compensation. Therefore, he has submitted that it is the duty of the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santro Devi and others reported in (2009) ACC 1 1, and he has further relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpa vs. Shakuntala reported in 2011 ACJ 705. He has submitted that in the recent judgment of this Court, in the matter of first appeal No.1247 of 2018 with other matters dtd. 12/9/2018, the Court has considered the judgment of Santro Devi (supra) and came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation. Therefore, he has prayed that his appeal is required to be allowed by holding the Insurance Company also liable to pay the amount of compensation.