SERVESH DEVI Vs. ANKUSH AGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimants' appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1988') against the judgment and award dtd. 17/9/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aligarh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 460 of 2014 (Smt. Sarvesh Devi and Ors. vs. Ankush Agarwal and Ors). The appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The office reports dtd. 16/12/2019, 24/3/2021 and 10/3/2022 state that notices by registered post as well as ordinary post were issued to the opposite parties but no acknowledgment has been returned nor any undelivered cover has been received back. In view of the aforesaid, service of notice on the opposite parties is deemed sufficient. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties. No cross appeal or cross objection has been filed by the opposite parties who are the owners, drivers and the Insurance Company.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 460 of 2014 was instituted by the claimantsappellants under Sec. 166 of the Act, 1988 alleging that one Har Prasad, working as Raaj Mistri, died in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle, i.e., Truck No. U.P. 81 A.F.-3896 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the offending vehicle') by its driver. The accident happened on 21/6/2014 at 07:00 p.m. The appellant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased, the appellant nos. 2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of the deceased. The appellant nos. 2 to 4 were minor at the time of the institution of the claim petition. The appellant no. 5 is the mother of the deceased. The appellant no. 5 died during the pendency of the case and her legal representatives are already on record as appellant nos. 1 to 4. The opposite party no. 1 is the owner of the vehicle, the opposite party no. 3 is the driver of the vehicle and the opposite party no. 2, i.e., Mega General Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the deceased was 34 years old and earned Rs.15,000.00 per month and had no bad habits. On the aforesaid facts, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.31,10,000.00 with 12% interest from the date of accident.

(3.) In their written statements the opposite parties denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. In its written statement, the opposite party no. 2, i.e., the Insurance Company denied the factum of accident and also its liability to pay compensation. The Tribunal framed four Issues. Issue no. 1 was regarding the factum of accident and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident, Issue no. 2 was as to whether, at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence, Issue no. 3 was as to whether at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with opposite party no. 2 and Issue no. 4 was regarding the amount of compensation payable to the claimants and the defendant liable to pay compensation.