MUNDA TAI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 25.3.2008 passed by learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No. 31/2007 whereby the application of claimants/appellants has been dismissed, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants. In brief the case of appellants as borne out from their application filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the MV Act") is that the appellants are the heirs of deceased Kamlesh Raut, aged 30 years, who had died in the motor accident on 4.2.2002. The first appellant is his widow while appellants 2 and 3 are the minor daughter and son respectively and appellant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased and all of them were dependent upon the income of the deceased. It is the further case of claimants that on 4.2.2002 the deceased by his own Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No. MH 31 AG-7953 was coming from Nagpur to his native village Langha Tahsil Pandurna, District Chhindwara to attend the last rites of his grand-mother. On the way, a dog all of a sudden appeared in front of the vehicle and in order to save his life the deceased who was driving the vehicle tried to take an acute turn but all of a sudden iron-end of the steering was broken and it became free as a result of which the vehicle dashed with a tree and turned turtle. The family members of the deceased as well as several other relatives who were in the jeep sustained serious injuries and the deceased on account of injuries sustained to him on his head and other parts of the body succumbed to death. Further the case of claimants is that the vehicle was insured and it was a comprehensive policy and, therefore, the insurer is bound to pay the compensation on account of the death of the deceased.

(2.) The insurer filed written-statement and pleaded that the deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of incident and because the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased who was driving the impugned vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and further that the provisions of Second Schedule of Section 163A of the MV Act are not applicable since his income was more than Rs. 40,000. In special plea it has been pleaded that the heirs of the deceased did not inform about the factum of death of the deceased in motor accident. The factum of getting the vehicle insured has also been denied. Further the stand which has been taken in the additional plea is that the deceased was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently for which he himself was liable and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. Thus, it has been prayed that the application be dismissed.

(3.) The learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and decided all the five claim cases including the present case by passing a common award. The learned Tribunal passed the award in the connected claim cases in which the family members of the deceased were traveling and they sustained injuries, however, by impugned award dismissed the application under Section 163A of the MV Act filed by the claimants for the death of the deceased.