NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JYOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / insurance company [original respondent no.3] impugns the judgment and award dtd. 06/04/2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad [for short 'the Tribunal'], in Motor Accident Claim Petition [MACP] No.111/2016, by which, a claim petition filed by respondent nos.1 to 5 [original claimants] under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] came to be allowed and compensation of Rs.24,84,480.00[Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Only] has been awarded to respondent nos.1 to 5. Hereinafter, parties are referred as per their original status before the Tribunal for the purpose of convenience and brevity.

(2.) The claimants had approached the Tribunal under Sec. 166 of the Act raising the claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000.00[Rupees One Crore] from the owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident and insurer of Tavera car bearing Registration No. MH-20-AS-4089. The claimants contended that on 07/09/2015, the deceased-Ashok was driving his Swift car bearing Registration No. MH-21-S-1033 from Ahmednagar towards Aurangabad. When he reached near Rahimpur Fata, his car was dashed against road divider and went on the opposite strip of the road. At the same time, the Tavera car was proceeding from Aurangabad towards Ahmednagar. There was collision between two vehicles. The deceased [driver of Swift car] suffered fatal injuries. Similarly, the driver of Tavera car lost his life in the same accident. The incident was reported to Waluj Police Station leading to registration of Crime No.178/2015 against the deceased. The according to claimants, the driver of Tavera car was responsible for the accident. Deceased - Ashok was aged about 47 years and serving as a Police Constable at Aurangabad and earning salary of Rs.32,093.00. per month. The claimants were dependent on his income; hence they are entitled for compensation from respondents i.e. owner and insurer of Tavera car.

(3.) The respondent no.1 [owner of Swift car] proceeded ex-parte. The respondent no.2 [owner of Tavera car] filed a written statement and objected maintainability of the claim on the ground that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. The respondent no.3 ' insurer filed written statement and denied the allegations regarding rash and negligent driving against the driver of insured car. It is pleaded that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and the claimants have no cause of action to claim compensation from the owner and insurer of Tavera car.