NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SHANKARLAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is being preferred by appellant/ Insurance Company against the award dated 12/01/2011 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri whereby claim application preferred by the claimant-respondents No.1 to 5 has been allowed and appellant/ Insurance Company alonwgith owner and driver of the offending vehicle was held liable joint or severely for payment of amount of Rs.5,90,000/- alongwith interest.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 5 preferred a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for release of amount of compensation for the death of deceased Betal Singh whereby on dated 09/02/2010, he succumbed to injuries caused in an accident by offending vehicle. The deceased was son of respondents No.1,2, husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondents No.4 and 5 respectively. The case was contested and award has been passed as referred above therefore, the appellant/ Insurance Company is before this Court in appeal.

(3.) It is the submission of counsel for the appellant that in the tribunal below on dated 07/12/2010, claimants' witnesses were examined and on 07/01/2011, a date was fixed for defendants' witnesses but defendants' witnesses could not get examined. Thereafter, a last opportunity was granted by the tribunal and case was fixed on 11/01/2011; date on which the evidence of appellant was closed and final arguments were heard and award was passed on dated 12/01/2011. Such undue haste shown by the tribunal prejudicially affected the prospects of the appellant to lead sufficient evidence because after passing of the award dated 12/01/2011, a report of RTO Agra who was the licencing authority of the driving licence of respondent No.6, was received, in which it was found that driving licence of the driver was found fake. That aspect is a very important factual aspect for adjudication of the controversy which could not be produced at the time of evidence due to haste shown by the tribunal below. Therefore, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has been preferred vide I.A. No.1741/2011 along with appeal to produce the said document on record. It is further submitted that although claimants have filed cross-objection in the appeal but the said cross-objection of the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation is neither valued nor Court fees has been paid therefore, the said cross-objection cannot be allowed to sustain in view of such fact.