CHAMELI BAI Vs. MUNNA LAL AHIRWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'), has been preferred by claimants-appellants being dissatisfied with the award of the 11th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in Claim Case No. 159 of 1994, dated 28.2.1998. By the impugned award the Tribunal has exonerated respondent No. 3 the insurer and awarded Rs. 1,27,200 only along with interest of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application. The appellants have come to this court for enhancement of the amount of award and mulcting the liability on the insurer.

(2.) As per the case of the appellants, on 27.12.1980 at 11 p.m. in night Pradeep Kumar, son of appellants, aged 21 years, was going to verify about a commercial truck by riding on his Luna and when he reached near Karamchand Chowk, Jabalpur, a truck bearing registration No. CIJ 8242 suddenly came and dashed against Luna. Due to this collision Pradeep Kumar was seriously injured. From the place of the incident he was shifted to the hospital. In spite of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The matter was reported at Police Station, Omti, Jabalpur where the offences under sections 297, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code were registered against respondent No. 1, who was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner and caused the said accident. The police after holding investigation submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned criminal court from which the claimants have taken over the certain certified copies of the documents and filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Act for grant of compensation. It has also been pleaded in the claim petition that on the date of the incident the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.

(3.) After conclusion of the trial the Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded Rs. 1,27,200 along with interest of 12 per cent per annum on all the heads and has absolved the respondent No. 3 the insurer from the liability on the ground that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 driver was under intoxicated condition and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is not liable for any compensation. The award has been passed only against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who have suffered the ex pane award.