PRATIBHA Vs. RUPESH PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award dated 4.12.2004 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul in M.C.C. No. 61 of 2004, the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the awarded sum.

(2.) As per the appellants-claimants on 29.4.2004 at about 8 o'clock in the night Antu Nirmalkar aged 30 years, husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 was coming back home from village Bagdona to Pathakheda on motor cycle TVS Max 100 his friend Oran was also with him as pillion rider. He drove the motor cycle in normal speed exercising all caution. On reaching near Rajeev Gandhi Tigadde, Pathakheda, where oil had spilled on the road and suddenly because of failure of brakes his motor cycle became imbalanced, slipped and collided with a tree they fell down and Antu sustained injuries on his head, face, hands and legs. He was taken to hospital Pathakheda, on the way he succumbed to injuries. The deceased was doing work of bicycle repairing in the shop of Sudhir Chakravarty, as alleged he was earning Rs. 200 to Rs. 250 per day and all the appellants were dependent on him as he was the only bread earner of the family. On information, Police Station, Pathakheda has registered the case. Due to sudden death of adult and earning family member, appellants have lost the source of dependency as well as love and affection of the husband and father. Claim was filed for compensation of Rs. 26,20,000 against respondent No. 1 owner of the motor cycle and respondent No. 2 the insurer of it.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte in the Claims Tribunal while in reply of respondent No. 2, the averments made by the appellants have been denied. The said motor cycle was driven by the deceased himself in a rash and negligent manner and that was the cause of the accident. The story relating to spilled mobile oil on the road is a manipulated one. The deceased was used to drinking liquor and on the date of the incident he was riding the motor cycle under the influence of liquor. The appellants are not entitled to any compensation. Deceased was not having effective and valid driving licence to ride the said vehicle. The premium for pillion rider was not paid by the insured, due to lack of premium the insurer is not liable to indemnify any claim, as such, the motor cycle was plied under the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and prayed for dismissal of the claim.