ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. CHANDRABAI N. KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 waives service. The applicant has preferred this appeal for challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The award is in the sum of 3,33,000. The claim for compensation arises out of a fatal accident.

(2.) By filing the additional written statement, the Insurance Company submitted that there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the insured i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle as he had allowed the deceased to travel in a goods vehicle as a passenger.

(3.) The applicant-Insurance Company has admittedly not led any evidence. Reliance is placed by the Advocate for the applicant on statement of one Makhare which is allegedly recorded by the police in investigation. The Advocate for the applicant submitted that certified copy of the said statement was produced on record and the said statement discloses that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle. It must be noted here that no attempt has been made by the applicant to issue witness summons to the said person. It is true that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. What was produced before the Tribunal was the statement of Shri Makhare which was obviously not signed by him. The learned Single Judge of this Court has observed in a decision reported in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Maggar Ghai Dhillon, 1993 ACJ 1048, that though the strict rules of evidence are not applicable, that does not mean that the basic rules of evidence are not applicable or are not required to be followed by the Tribunal.