FATIMA BARRETO Vs. BALSU ULLHAS XETKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal arises out of the judgment and Award dated 15/5/ 2003, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 206/2001, filed by the appellants herein. The said Award is challengedsolely on the ground that the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, has not been made liable and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to pay the said amount.

(2.) The facts in brief can be stated thus: The appellants herein are the heirs of late Domnic Barretto, who expired in consequence of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident which took place on 5.1.2001 at Karmalghat, Quepem. The motorcycle driven by the deceased Domnic was given a dash by a Pick-up vehicle bearing No. KA 30-4143, which was driven by the respond ent No. 1 and which was owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3. It was the case of the appellants that the said Pick up vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident which led to the death of late Dominic Barretto. It was their case that the said Domnic was the only earning member of the family and, therefore, they claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation under various heads. Though the respondents were served in the said claim petition, none of the respondents appeared and, therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against them. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, Issue No. 3 of the issues framed by the Claim's Tribunal, is material and is reproduced herein under :

(3.) The said issue was held to be proved by the Claims Tribunal, however, the Claims Tribunal has refused to make the respondent No. 3- Insurance Company liable as details of the Insurance Policy in the matter of its validity etc. were not produced and what was produced was the Policy of the year 2000 and there was no material on record that the Policy was valid on the date of the accident i.e. 5.6.2001. The Tribunal was of the view that merely because the Insurance Certificate was produced, the liability could not be fastened on respondent No. 3 in the absence of their being material to show the validity of the Insurance Policy on the day of the accident.