UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. REHANA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , is seeking exception to the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in claim Petition No. 74 of 1995, by which the claim petition of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, was allowed and the respondent nos. 1 and 2, i. e. , present appellant and the respondent No. 8 were directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,30,000 jointly and severally along with the interest, etc. , besides the costs.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal can be stated thus: one Ashfaque Abdul Gaffar Ansari, the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was returning to home on 23. 10. 1995 by his scooter. One truck bearing registration No. MH 31-4157, owned by respondent No. 8 and insured with the appellant, dashed against him, resulting in his death. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7, i. e. , applicants claimed that he was the only earning member in the family. His age at the time of death was 43 years. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 5,164. The claim application was preferred under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000 was claimed. It was alleged that the driver of the truck was negligent in driving the same which had caused the death of the said Ashfaque. The details as required were furnished in the petition.

(3.) THE insurance of the said vehicle (truck) was admitted. However, it was contended by the appellant that the truck was driven by one Anthony Philip Fernandiz, who in fact was the 'cleaner' of the said truck. It was claimed that authorised driver was one Mohammad Kalim, however, at the time of accident, he was not driving the said truck, but at that time anthony Philip Fernandiz, the cleaner was driving the said truck without the consent of the said driver. Therefore, according to the appellant, there was breach of conditions of policy and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The owner of the truck, i. e. , the present respondent No. 8 did not appear and contest the claim, so he was proceeded ex parte.