LAXMINARAYAN SHARMA Vs. MAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by the owner of vehicle against an Award dated 21st December 2004 in Claim Case No. 25/2005 by the Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabalgarh, district Morena, exonerating the Insurance Company from satisfying the award amount and directed the appellant for payment of compensation to the claimants.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that on 23rd June 2003 at about 2-30 p.m., Bhukhan, husband of respondent No.1/claimant was going on foot from village Rijhoni to Kailaras town. In mid-way, near village Torika, the driver (respondent No.6) of the tractor bearing No. MP 06 JA 8574, by moving the vehicle rashly and negligently dashed against Bhukhan from his front side and caused to him grave injuries, resulting his death. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged by Mangilal, resident of village Karori upon which a crime was registered against the driver for commission of offence under sections 304- A, 279 and 337 of I.P.C. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle involved in accident. The criminal case of the incident was pending. It was not disputed that the offending tractor was owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No.5-Insurance Company. The claimants being dependents/legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000/- with 12% interest on award amount against the respondents. The learned tribunal after considering the facts and evidence on record, awarded Rs. 1,92,000/- as compensation against the owner and driver but exonerated the Insurance Company for indemnifying the award amount on behalf of the owner, the insured, hence, this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of accident, the tractor was driven by the respondent No.6 who was having valid driving licence. The tractor involved in accident owned by the appellant was insured with the Insurance Company. At the relevant time, the tractor was driving for transporting fodder for animals. It is submitted that there is no violation of the terms of insurance policy, hence, the Insurance Company by the provision of law and contract of terms of policy was liable to indemnify and satisfy the award amount passed in favour of the claimants.