(1.) This appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the said Act ") has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company (Insurance Company) challenging judgment and award dtd. 3/1/2008 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akot, district Akola (learned Member of the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.2/2006 whereby the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation Rs.3,96,000.00 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition, till its realization.
(2.) Brief facts are that on 4/11/2005 Deependra, husband of respondent No.1, was traveling by vehicle Taxi bearing No.MH-30-P-5897. He boarded in the Taxi at Rohana stop and was proceedings towards Akola. When the vehicle Taxi reached at Pati Shiwar on Dahihanda Road, the tyre of the vehicle Taxi was burst and the vehicle tumbled down. In the alleged accident, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. As per claimants, the vehicle Taxi was driven by its driver in a high speed without observing traffic rules and regulations, in the result the accident occurred. The vehicle Taxi was owned by respondent No.6 and validly insured with the Insurance Company. Regarding the said accident, crime was registered at Dahihanda Police Station, Akola vide Crime No.76/2005 under Ss. 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. As the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle Taxi owned by respondent No.6 and validly insured with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle Taxi are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, claimants sought compensation from the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle Taxi.
(3.) The claim was contested by respondent No.6/owner of the vehicle Taxi and the Insurance Company by filing written statements vide Exhibits-19 and 21 respectively. Respondent No.6/owner of the vehicle Taxi has admitted that the alleged accident took place due to bursting of tyre, however denied the contention that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle Taxi. Whereas, the Insurance Company denied the contention of claimants and raised defence that the policy, issued to respondent No.6/owner of the vehicle Taxi, was to cover the use of vehicle only for carriage of passengers in accordance with terms and conditions of the permit issued within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Rules. As per the permit, maximum number of passengers were permitted to be carried 6+1 driver only, however the driver of the vehicle Taxi bearing No.MH-30-P-5897 was carrying in all 11 passengers which was breach of conditions of the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants.