TULSI BAI Vs. ABDUL REHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 2047/08 as in both the appeals the award under challenged is dated 31/01/08 passed by Addl. MACT Sendhwa, Distt. Badwani in claim case No. 94/07, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was allowed and compensation of Rs. 3,08,000/- was awarded and respondent No.3 was exonerated.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that appellants filed a claim petition before the learned tribunal alleging that on 19/05/07 deceased Harbans Singh was standing on the side of the road, at that time passenger bus bearing registration No. M.P.46P/0109 which was being driven by respondent No.1,owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 dashed Harbans Singh with the result he sustained injuries. He was brought to hospital where he passed away. It was prayed that claim petition be allowed and adequate compensation be awarded. Claim petition proceeded ex-parte against respondent Nos. 1, 2. Respondent No. 3 filed written statement wherein it was alleged that respondent No.1 was not possessing the valid driving license and also the offending vehicle was not having the valid permit and the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation as stated above and exonerated respondent No.3 on the ground that the offending vehicle was not having the valid permit, against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Shri Vishal Verma, learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that the learned tribunal assessed the income @ Rs. 3,000/- p.m. and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses applied the multiplier of 12 and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,08,000/-. Learned counsel submits that the income assessed by the learned tribunal is on lower side and on other heads also the amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that learned tribunal was not justified in exonerating the respondent No.3. It is submitted that even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that the offending vehicle was not having the valid permit, then too, the vehicle was duly insured and the deceased was third party, therefore, at the most right of recovery could have been given to respondent No.3. It is submitted that appeal be allowed, impugned award be enhanced and findings whereby respondent No.3 has been exonerated be set aside.