RAMESHWAR Vs. MOTIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the Appellants -claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") being aggrieved by the award dated 19.9.2001, passed by 7th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 323/1997 consolidated with Claim Case No. 386/97, whereby their claim regarding vehicular -death of Laxmi Narayan, has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 30.5.1997 between 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. Laxmi Narayan the husband of Respondent No. 4, son of Appellant No. 1 and 2 while brother of Appellant No. 3 to 5, being fruits vendor was returning to his home with his handcart, on the way Respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle (Metador) bearing registration number MP09/S -2377 in rash and negligent manner dashed him, resultantly he sustained injuries. He was taken to MY. Hospital Indore, in the course of treatment he succumbed to such injuries on 31.5.1997. On receiving the information merg intimation and FIR was registered at Police Station Aerodrome, in which the name of driver and number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned but in the investigation it was revealed that the Respondent No. 1 while driving the aforesaid vehicle in rash and negligent manner caused the alleged accident. On completion of investigation Respondent No. 1 was charge sheeted for the same. As per further averments the deceased being fruit vendor was earning Rs. 4,000/p.m. The Appellants and Respondent No. 4 were dependent on him. The deceased was aged about 25 years on the date of the incident. Initially the Appellants and Respondent No. 4 filed their separate claims bearing case No. 386/9 7 and No. 323/97 respectively but in pendency of the same Respondent No. 4 was inserted as claimant in the Claim Case No. 386/97. As per further averments the offending vehicle was registered in the name of Respondent No. 2 while the same was insured with Respondent No. 3. With the aforesaid averments the Appellants and Respondent No. 4 filed their claim for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ - with a prayer to saddle its liability against Respondent No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

(3.) IN reply of Respondent No. 3, by denying all the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that such vehicle was plied by its driver without having any valid and effective driving licence and thereby the terms and conditions of the policy was violated. The factum of insurance of offending vehicle with it was impliedly denied for want of verification. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the claim was made.