NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYQ Vs. MALATI SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company under Section 173 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 4th of September, 2003 passed by the III -MACT, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 272/229(C) of 1997 -95 by which it has been held that the insurers of the offending truck and trekker were equally liable to pay the compensation with interest to the claimants.

(2.) THE case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 12.06.1995 at about 5.30 PM while the deceased -Mahendra Sethi was returning to his village in a trekker from Jalada to Bari in a marriage party, a truck bearing registration NO. AP -16T -6845 coming from Bhadrak side dashed against the trekker on NH -5 near Matiapada Dhaba. Further case of the claimants was that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck. As a result of the said accident the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the said injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a washer man in a Laundry with a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/ - with which he was maintaining his family consisting of eight members. In the claim petition, the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 4.45 lakhs. Before the Learned Tribunal, owner of the truck (OP -1) and owner of the trekker (OP -3) have been set ex parte. The Oriental Insurance Company (OP No. 2) and also the National Insurance Company (OP - 4), the present Appellant contested the case by filing written statements. According to OP -2 (the insurer of the offending truck), it was not liable to pay compensation as the Insurance policy was not valid and the accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the trekker. The case of OP -4 (the insurer of the trekker) is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck and as such OP -2 is liable to pay compensation. Both of them have denied their liability and called upon the claimants to prove the case by producing documentary evidence.

(3.) TWO witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. Petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW - 1 and a co -villager as PW -2. Opposite Parties have not examined any witness. The claimants filed certified copy of the Police papers. Opposite Parties also filed certified copies of the M.V.I. report, driving licence and photocopy of the insurance certificate.