NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. URMILA KAKASAHEB DOIPHODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant-Original Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 31/3/2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal ') in M.A.C.P. No. 39 of 2001, only on two counts, first whether the findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of the involvement of the offending motorcycle bearing No. MH-23/D-3264, in the accident is based on substantial evidence and the second whether the claim petition was tenable against the insurance company ,in absence of the legal representatives of the owner of offending vehicle i.e. Pandurang Tukaram Toul, the Original Respondent No. 1.

(2.) From the record it is evident that on 18/10/1998 one Kakasaheb Nanasaheb Doiphode was returning home, from Ambedkar statute, Mondha Road, Beed on his Scooter bearing No. MZY-3155 from Mali-ves road. However, in front of Paras Lodge the present respondent No. 5 i.e. the owner of the offending motorcycle came from opposite direction and gave dash to the scooter of Kakasaheb. Due to said collision, Kakasaheb sustained severe injuries, including fracture of the skull and died on the spot. One Shantilal Budhadeo when found Kakasaheb lying on the road, took him to the District Hospital Beed, but the doctor declared Kakasaheb dead on arrival. Then accident was reported to the City Police Station and Crime No. 367 of 1998 was registered initially against unknown person, but after the investigation it was revealed that it was the present respondent No. 5 Pandurang who gave dash to the scooter of the deceased Kakasaheb. The charge-sheet was also filed against respondent No. 5 Pandurang. However, prior to the filing of this Claim Petition, Pandurang died and hence a criminal proceedings against him stood abated.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company strongly submitted that there was no eye witness to the incident and the claimants also failed to establish the involvement of the alleged offending motorcycle in the accident. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence, the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of the involvement of the offending motorcycle is apparently erroneous. He pointed out that the claimants did not examine any witness, who had actually seen the accident. He claimed that the investigating officer must have shown the involvement of the offending motorcycle by joining hands with the present respondent No. 5. He further submitted that the claimants also failed to bring the legal representatives of the said deceased owner of the offending motorcycle on record and therefore, in their absence the claim is not maintainable against the insurance company alone.