NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/insurer has come forward to this Court with this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (In short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 27-2-2006 passed by Ilnd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Mandla, whereby the claim of the respondents filed under section 163-A of the Act has been awarded against the appellant/insurer for the sum of Rs.2,77,520/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. from 7-7-2003.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the respondents-claimants herein filed their claim petition under section 163-A of the Act contending that the husband of the respondent No. 1 while the father of applicants No. 2 and 3 namely; Purushottam Patel, was driving his own tractor on 9-5-2003 having the Engine No. B.O. 8061 and chasis No. SLO-301-SA-35951, collide with a bridge of some canal and met an accident resultantly, he sustained the injuries and consequently died. As per further averments, the deceased was working as Post Master in the Postal Department of Union of India and being agriculturist was also having the income from the agriculture. On receiving the information of such accident, a Crime No. 215/03 for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Out Post Anjania, and corpus of the deceased was sent to hospital for post-mortem, the same was carried out. Due to death of said registered owner of the tractor, no charge-sheet was filed in the matter. With these averments without showing any negligence on the part of the deceased, the present claim is preferred on behalf of respondents againsv the appellant/insurer with whom the alleged Tractor was insured for the compensation of Rs.17 lacs with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(3.) In reply of the appellant, by denying the facts stated in the claim petition regarding alleged accident, in addition, it is stated that such tractor was driven by Purushottam Patel, contrary to the terms of policy without having duly and effective driving licence. Besides this, the claim is also objected on the ground of tenability before the Tribunal under section 163-A of the Act. It is stated that the deceased being insured and registered owner of the vehicle as per terms of the Insurance Policy, his legal representatives, the respondents are not entitled to get any award under the provision of section 163-A of the Act from the Tribunal.