BHABANI MANDAL Vs. RANJAN KUMAR CHANDGOTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') filed by the claimant-appellants challenging the award dated 19.09.2008 passed by the Ist. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') Mayurbhanj, in M.A.C.T Misc.Case No.214 of 2005

(2.) Case of the appellants before the Tribunal is that on 18.11.2005 at about 9.30 A.M while the deceased was going to his office at Analaduba from his postal colony residence at Kucheibudi, Rairangpur with his Scooter bearing Registration No.BR-16-6347 on the left side of the road, near Le Sancy hotel on the main road of Rairangpur, the offending oil tankerbearing Registration No.ORM-9941 came from his behind being driven by its driver in a high speed and dashed against the deceased. As a result of such accident, the deceased was thrown out of his Scooter and sustained fracture and other injuries on his person. He was immediately shifted to S.D. Hospital, Rairangpur and as his condition was serious, he was referred to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, where he succumbed to his injuries. The Police registered a criminal case bearing P.S Case No.108 dated 18.11.2005 under Section 279/338, IPC and submitted charge sheet under Section 279/304-A, IPC against the driver of the offending oil tanker. The further case of the appellants is that the offending oil tanker belonged to one Ranjan Kumar Chandgotia, Respondent no.1, and it was duly insured with opposite party No.2-Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Cuttack. At the time of death, the deceased was 48 years old and working as a Postal Assistant in the Sub-Post Office, Analaduba Branch and was getting salary of Rs.10,310/- at the time of accident. Stating the above facts, the appellants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-.

(3.) Opposite Party No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceeding and he was set ex parte. Opposite Party No.2, the Insurer of the offending oil tanker contested the proceeding and filed written statement stating inter alia that the case was not maintainable and denied all the averments made in the claim petition including the insurance policy and the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and asked the petitioners to prove the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence. Respondent No.2 also disputed the age and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.