SONALBEN BHANABHAI TADVI Vs. MADHUBEN BHAGUBHAI TADVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the present appellants, who are the original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 15/11/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Narmada at Rajpipla in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 18 of 2010, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,30,900.00 with 9% interest per annum to the claimants holding Respondent No. 1 (owner of the vehicle) liable for the same, Respondent No. 2-insurance company is exonerated by the Tribunal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellants Mr. M.T.M. Hakim has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability as looking to the policy itself, it transpires that policy Exh. 23 that the Insurance Company has collected the premium of Rs.100.00 towards personal accident of owner-cum-driver and has also collected Rs.25.00 as premium towards legal liability to the driver (IMT-28) and therefore, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the document of policy at Exh. 23 and in view of various judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly, the claim petition filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the liability of the Insurance Company could be fastened and learned Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the insurance company from its legal liability. In support of this contention, learned advocate for the appellants have relied upon the judgments (i) reported in 2014 (1) GLH 212 in the case of Smt. T.S. Shylaja Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr., (ii) (2020) 7 SCC 386 in the case of Chandrakanta Tiwari V. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr ., (iii) 2021 (4) GLH 77 in the case of Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/ o. Late Laxmanbhai Ramsingbhai Thakore (koli) and others Vs. Kandla Dock Labour Board and Anr., and has submitted that in the Full Bench decision of this Court as well as the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company cannot run away from its liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. He has also submitted that the claim is filed to get the compensation of Rs.4,38,836.00. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,30,900.00 by erroneously considering the income of the deceased Rs.2,400.00 instead of income should be Rs.3,200.00 per month, which is also required to be considered appropriately. It is also the claim of the claimants in the claim petition that they have suffered loss of love and affection and also have loss of future income of the father. It is also case of the claimants that they have incurred huge expenses for deceased's funeral ceremony. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in dismissing the application filed under the provisions of Order 47 and Rule 1 of C.P.C. for reviewing its judgment and award by considering that the Tribunal has, in earlier judgment and order in the claim petition, has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company and no apparent error from the face of record is found. It is submitted that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and is required to be interfered with by this Court.