UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SUNITA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed at the instance of the United India Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the Award dated 09.05.2007 passed by the Member, 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No.267 of 2002(S).

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who were the petitioners/claimants before the Tribunal, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V. Act'). Claimants' case before the Tribunal in a nutshell is that the deceased-Alok Kumar Naik was serving as an Engineer in Indian Petro-Chemicals Limited (for short, 'IPCL') and was getting monthly salary of Rs.24,000/- at the time of death. On 08.07.2002 at about 3.30 PM, while returning home with his colleagues from his place of work at Bharuch, Gujarat in a Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-6W-5131 at Dhahaj road near a Petrol Pump, a truck bearing Registration No.GJ-17T-7084 came in a high speed from the opposite direction and hit the bus on its face, as a result of which many persons were severely injured including the deceased. The deceased was removed to a hospital at Bharuch where he was declared dead. Further case of the claimants was that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of accident. With these facts the claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

(3.) Owners of the bus and the truck (opposite parties 1 and 2) did not appear before the Tribunal after notice and the Tribunal directed to hear the claim petition ex-parte as against them. The United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company'), which is the insurer of both the vehicles, i.e., the bus and the truck involved in the accident, appeared as opposite party No.3 and filed its written statement. Before the Tribunal, though the Insurance Company admitted itself to be the insurer of both the vehicles and the policies were to be valid on the date of accident but denied its liability to pay the amount of compensation on the ground that the drivers were not having valid licence. It also challenged the quantum of compensation claimed as high and excessive.