NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Vs. RINKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 20th April, 2004 passed by the II nd member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 126/03, parumal and others Vs. Hasankhan and others.

(2.) IT has been stated by the appellant-Insurance Company in the appeal that on 2nd November, 2003 an accident took place and the deceased shyam Jeswani died on account of road accident involving the Jeep bearing No. MP-07-B-6888. The Jeep on the date of accident was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. A claim was preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who are the children, widow and parents of the deceased Shyam Jeswani and the claim has been allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It has been further stated by the Insurance Company that on 2nd November, 2003, the deceased was riding a scooter and was following a Jeep, the driver of the Jeep suddenly applied the brakes which resulted in an accident as the scooter collided from behind with the Jeep, resulting in death of Shyam Jeswani. An award passed by the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant-Insurance company on the ground that the respondent No. 6 driver of the Jeep was not responsible for the accident as the deceased was following the Jeep and he could not stop when the driver of the Jeep applied the brakes. Leaned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has vehemently argued before this Court that the driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle should keep a sufficient distance from another vehicle to avoid collision in case the vehicle in front suddenly slows down or stops. It has been contended before this Court that the Claims Tribunals has erred in law in not taking note of Rule 23 of the Road regulations, 1989 according to which it was incumbent upon the deceased to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead of him. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has also taken a ground that it was a case of contributory negligence and liability of the Insurance Company is liable to be decreased. It has also been argued that the income of the deceased has not been correctly taken into account as the award is based upon the annual income of the deceased on the basis of income tax returns for the assessment year 2002-2003. As per the Exh. P-2, which is income tax return for the assessment year 2002-2003, the income of the deceased has been reflected as Rs. 66,230/ -. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has prayed for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants on the other hand made a prayer for dismissal of the present appeal and has argued that the sole bread winner of the family loss his life in a road accident and he was an income tax payee. It has also been stated before this Court that the income tax returns of three years were enclosed and the last income tax return which was filed the deceased himself has been taken into account while awarding compensation. Learned Counsel for the respondent claimants have also argued before this Court that under the Road Regulations, 1989, no such distance is specified and it was the Jeep driver who has driven the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner. Not only this, the learned Counsel has prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.