KUNTI AHIRWAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defensibility and acceptability of the award dated 29-3-2006 passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tikamgarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 110-2005 is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act').

(2.) The facts which are imperative to be exposited are that the legal representatives of the deceased, Baijnath, initiated an action under Section 166 of the Act for grant of compensation for a sum of Rs. 12,70.390/- on the foundation that the said Baijnath who was working as an Assistant Grade-II in the Rural Engineering Services at Tikamgarh, met with a vehicular accident on 7-9-2003 while he was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. 36-B-7318 and proceeding forwards Lalitpur. He fell on the road as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries for which he availed treatment at a hospital at Gwalior and eventually he met his end on the same day. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that he was 45 years of age and his monthly income was Rs. 6,586/ It was set forth that his contribution to the family was enormous and on that basis the amount, as indicated hereinbefore, was claimed before the Tribunal.

(3.) The insurance company which was made the sole opposite party combatted claim put forth by the legal representatives on the bedrock that the insurance policy did not cover the case of the owner as such a policy is not required to be issued in terms of the language employed under Section 147 of the Act. Additionally it was asserted that the owner of the motorcycle was himself responsible for the accident and, therefore, no compensation was payable.