NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NANDRAM PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the Insurer/appellant under Section 173 of the motor Vehicle Act,1988 (in short the Act) being aggrieved by the award dated 10. 7. 2002 whereby the claim of the respondent No. 1 regarding death of his daughter in vehicular accident has been awarded against the appellant for the sum of Rs. 65000/-along with the interest at the rate of 9% P. A from the date of filing the claim petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 25. 2. 2001 at about 1 O' Clock in the noon, Ms Priyanka aged 6 years daughter of respondent no. 1 died in a road accident near Int-Bhatta, Rajiv Nagar Ward, Sagar. The alleged incident was caused by a tractor bearing registration No. MP 15-F 1684 due to negligence of respondent No. 2 the driver of such truck. Such tractor was registered in the name of respondent NO. 1 and insured with the appellant. On the aforesaid date it was stationed with the running condition of its engine, resultantly it proceeded and ran over the said Priyanka. On receiving the information, an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC was registered at Police Station Moti nagar, Sagar. After investigation, respondent No. 2 was charge-sheeted for such offence. Due to untimely death of the daughter, respondent NO. 1 was deprived from her love and affection and also sustained the mental pain. It is also pleaded that due to shock of this incident, his wife also died. With these averments, the claim was preferred for the sum of Rs. 10,10,000/-with a prayer to award the interest at the rate of 18% P. A.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 remained ex-parte before the tribunal while in reply of appellant, the averments of the claim petition are denied. In additional pleadings, it is pleaded that respondent No. 1 being the registered owner of the vehicle and insured person, is not entitled to get any award of the alleged incident as the tractor was insured only to cover the risk of third party and respondent No. 1 being insured, is not covered within the purview of the third party. The claim petition is preferred with the collusion of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 did not possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive such tractor. Accordingly, the tractor was plied contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of claim was made.