KAZI MOHAMMED SHAMEEM Vs. TARA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants who are owner and driver against impugned award dtd. 10/4/2019 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katni (for short the 'Tribunal') in MACC No.281/2017 for setting aside the award as against them.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 6/claimants filed claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal stating that deceased-Sanjay Singh was husband of respondent No.1, son of respondents No.2 and 3 and father of respondents No.4 to 6. On 28/6/2016 at about 10 p.m. the deceased was sitting as a labourer in carrier Dala of the Truck bearing registration No. MP-1/GA-0332 and was travelling from Katni to Basadi. The deceased fell asleep in Dala of the Truck and the appellant No.2 (driver) rashly and negligently got the sand filled in Dala of truck by proclaim machine due to which the deceased came beneath the sand and died of having been buried in the sand. On the next day morning i.e. 29/10/2016 when the sand was dumped the body of deceased was found dead. It was further contended by the claimants that at the time of accident with offending vehicle was owned by appellant No.1, driven by appellant No.2 and insured with the respondent No.7-Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurance Company'). After recording of Marg, the Police Station, Kuthla, District Katni registered offence as Crime No.72/17 under Sec. 304 of IPC. At the time of accident the deceased was aged 34 years and was earning Rs.6,000.00 per month as a labourer. The respondents/claimants claimed Rs.19,64,000.00 as compensation with interest from appellants and respondent No.7 jointly and severally.

(3.) The appellants filed written statement and denied the adverse allegations. They contended that on 29/10/2016 the truck was driven carefully and no accident took placed with said truck. The respondents/claimants have filed false and fabricated claim in order to get the compensation. The truck was insured with respondent No.7/Insurance Company. The truck was operated in accordance with the conditions of policy. The appellant/driver was possessing a valid driving licence and was competent to drive the said truck. Hence, they claimed dismissal of claim petition.