ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SK AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original respondent No.3- insurance company challenging the Judgment and Award passed by learned Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge-6), Aurangabad in M.A.C.P. No.698/2006 dated 09.08.2010, whereby the claim petition filed by present respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") came to be partly decreed against it.

(2.) The original claimants have come with a case that they are the parents of deceased Shaikh Nisar. Shaikh Nisar was travelling in Tempo Matador bearing registration No.MH 20/F-5395 on 15.02.1997 at about 4.30 p.m. from Gangapur to village Dhoregaon. A truck bearing No.TVD ORA 5447 came from opposite direction, when the tempo was near Sayyadpur village. The said truck was in high speed. The driver was driving it rashly and negligently. The said truck gave dash to matador, as a result of which Shaikh Nisar received injuries and died on the spot. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the driver of the truck. The said truck was insured with respondent No.3, on the date of accident. Crime was registered against the truck driver. It was the further contention of the claimants, that Shaikh Nisar used to run a Pan Stall and was also doing agriculture. He used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. By way of amendment to the petition the claimants had added tempo driver, owner and insurance company as respondent Nos.4 to 6. It was also contended that the respondent No.2- driver of the truck was also responsible for the accident. However, claim was made as against respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.

(3.) The matter proceeded ex parte against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3-insurance company filed written statement and denied all the allegations including the allegations about rashness and negligence about driver of the truck. It is stated that Shaikh Nisar was travelling as a passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.