NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DURGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant/insurer under Section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') being aggrieved by the award dated 5. 4. 2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panna in Claim Case no. 29/03, whereby the claim of respondents 1 to 3 regarding vehicular death of pappu has been awarded against the appellant/insurer and respondents 4 and 5, the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle respectively, by holding their joint and several liability to indemnify the sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% P. A from the date of filing the claim petition i. e. 26. 3. 2003.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 19. 4. 2003 pappu Bhumia, aged 22 years, son of respondents 1 and 2 while husband of respondent No. 3, with some other persons of the village had gone to Itwa road for work as labourer on the tractor of respondent No. 5 bearing registration No. M. P. 21-9577. The same was driven by respondent No. 4. At about 4 O' Clock in the noon while they were going to reload the tractor, on the way due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4 deceased Pappu Bhumia sitting on the bonut of the tractor was fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to the hospital. After preliminary treatment, he was referred to district hospital Panna but on the way of such hospital he succumbed to the injuries. The incident was reported to police Station Saleha. After registration of the offence, the investigation was held and respondent No. 4 was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 279,304-A of the IPC. The deceased being bread-winner of the family was earning Rs. 70/per day as laborer. Due to his untimely death, the respondents 1 to 3 have been deprived from the dependency and also sustained mental agony of the incident. The tractor was registered in the name of respondent No. 5 while the same was insured with the appellant. With these averments, respondents 1 to 3 preferred their claim for the sum of Rs. 14,02,200/-and interest on it.

(3.) IN reply of respondent No. 4, it is denied that on the date of the incident the offending tractor was driven by him under the employment of respondent No. 5. He has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. In such premises, he denied all the averments of the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.