PATIRAM & OTHERS Vs. LOKESH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 has been preferred by the claimants being dissatisfied with an Award dated 4th February 2005 in Claim Case No. 238/03 passed by the Second Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) The facts of the case are recapitulated as under:- It is alleged that on 7th October 2003, Goru Kushwah, father of the complainants was travelling in a Jeep (Tempo Trex) bearing registration No.MPGT-9006 from village Devri Khurd to Shivpuri. Lokesh, driver drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner consequently, it turned turtle near village Singhniwas, resulting Goru Kushwaha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed on next day of the accident in the District Hospital where he was admitted. On the report, an F.I.R. was lodged on which a crime for commission of offence under sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. was registered against the driver Lokesh and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. The deceased was an agriculturist and vegetable vender and was earning monthly Rs. 6,000/- in total. In a claim petition before the tribunal, the claimants/dependents and heirs of the deceased prayed for an Award of Rs. 14,26,000/- alongwith an interest against the owner, driver and the Insurance Company. On considering the evidence of the parties, the learned tribunal passed an Award of Rs. 52,000/- against the respondents. Being aggrieved by an Award, the claimants have presented this appeal.

(3.) The contention put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company/respondent No.3 is that the driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It was further submitted that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle involved in accident was registered temporally for personal use. Hence, the vehicle was driven against the law and terms of the insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to indemnify the insured.