LAWS(GJH)-2008-11-170

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED Vs. MEERABEN K SINDHI

Decided On November 10, 2008
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Meeraben K Sindhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - Ori. Opponent no. 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 13th October, 1995, passed by the MAC Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara in MAC Petition No. 121 of 1987.

(2.) THE present appellant - ori. Opponent no. 2 with whom the vehicle in question, that is, motor truck bearing registering No. GTT -7672 has been insured and as per the evidence on record, the said vehicle was insured for a period from 1.5.1986 to 30.4.1987. The said vehicle has been involved in the accident in question and as a result of which, deceased Keshumal Sindhi has received serious injuries and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries and, therefore, heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have filed MAC Petition No. 121/1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Vadodara. After recording the evidence and giving opportunity of hearing to the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the learned Tribunal has delivered the judgment and award on 13th october, 1995, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 5,90,000/ - in favour of original claimants along with the proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of the application till realisation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant - Insurance Company has preferred this appeal in the year 1996, but, somehow, notice could not be served upon ori. Opponent no. 1 - Kamlasinh Chadulal Chaudhary, driver -cum -owner of the vehicle in question, who is opponent no. 9 in this appeal, from 1996 to 10th November, 2008, and, therefore, the office has placed this matter for hearing on Board.

(3.) MR . Nair learned advocate appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company has shown his willingness to argue the appeal on merits, irrespective of the fact that opponent no. 9 is not served till date. Mr. Nair has mainly argued on the ground that their contention was technical one and limited to the liability.