RANI Vs. PAWAN KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present first appeal from order has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 26.7.2011, whereby the claim petition of the claimants-appellants has been rejected.

(2.) Smt. Rani wife of Ram Kumar and her husband Ram Kumar son of Lahori, are the appellants before this court, who lost their only child, namely Mamta, aged about 8 years on 4.3.2010. The claimants-appellants are resident of village Purebeju, Majra Chanda Balipur, Police Station Nazirabad, District Raebareilly. The claimant-appellant no.2 Ram Kumar had gone to his in-laws place and was returning along with his wife and daughter on 4.3.2010, and while they were at Purepandey Chauraha on Parsadepur Marg, a Bolero Jeep bearing registration no. UP 33M/6991, coming from Raebareilly side dashed/hit the claimants-appellants' daughter, who was standing on left road side at 4.15 PM, on account of rash and negligent driving, as a result of which she sustained serious injuries and died instantly. The vehicle and its driver were caught at the spot and a timely first information report was lodged at 4.45 PM on 4.3.2010 being Case Crime No.82 of 2010 under sections 279, 304-A I.P.C., in which postmortem examination was also conducted. After concluding the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed under sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. The claimants-appellants, therefore, filed claim petition for payment of compensation on the ground that the deceased was only child and the appellants' life had been ruined due to loosing of their only hope, who could otherwise have taken care of the claimants-appellants in their old age. Amount of compensation under different heads were claimed, amounting in all to Rs.10,25,000/- .

(3.) Admittedly, the vehicle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., which appeared before the tribunal and filed its written objection. It was claimed that the vehicle was being run through a driver, who had no driving licence nor any route permit was available and, therefore, the insurance company claimed that it was not liable to pay any compensation by virtue of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also claimed that the driver of the vehicle was drunk and, therefore, the provisions of the policy has been breached. Various other defence were also taken.