JYOTI GANESH GAVHANE Vs. A.S. USMANPURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the insurance company-original respondent No.2 challenging the Judgment and Award passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No.559/2012 dated 03.01.2017, whereby the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by present respondent Nos.1 to 5 came to be allowed against it.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are, that the claimants are the heirs of one Ganesh Vinayak Gavhane. He was proceeding from S.R.P. Group No.7 towards Daund city on 15.06.2012 with one Yuvraj Gurav on motorcycle bearing No.MH 10/AM-2788. When they reached in front of gate 3 FA_938_2018_Jd No.2, at that time another motorcycle bearing No.MH 40/L-5241 and one Tata Sumo jeep bearing registration No.MH 16/R-1909 came from opposite direction. The said Tata Sumo gave forcible dash to motorcycle bearing No.MH 42/L-5241 and thereafter that motorcycle gave dash to the motorcycle on which deceased was the pillion rider. As a result of which, all the occupants of both the motorcycles fell down and due to the multiple injuries to his head, deceased Ganesh expired on the spot. It is contended that the said accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the Tata Sumo driver only. On the basis of report lodged with the Police Station inquiry as well as investigation has been carried out and the jeep driver has been prosecuted. It was the further contention of the claimants, that Ganesh was 27 years old person having permanent job with Cipla Limited at Kurkum M.I.D.C., Daund, Dist. Pune. He was getting Rs.24,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, the claimants had claimed compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- together with interest from original respondent No.1, who was the owner of the said jeep and present appellant-original respondent No.2 with whom the said jeep was insured on the date of the accident.

(3.) Respondent No.1 as well as No.2 filed separate written statement. They both have denied the contents of the petition. The averments about allegations in driving on the part of the jeep driver have 4 FA_938_2018_Jd been denied specifically. The insurance company had come with a case that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence of the class of vehicle he was driving, at the relevant time. There is breach of terms of policy by the respondent No.1 and therefore, the insurance company will have to be exonerated.