PRIYA VART CHOUDHURY Vs. MALATI RANI GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents No. 1 to 4 filed an application U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) claiming compensation of Rs. 9 lacs initially against the present appellant and the Insurance Company, for the death occurred to Basudev Ghosh in a motor accident occurred on 22. 01. 91 at the 1st Battalion Gate, Police Reserve at about 2:50 p. m. involving the motor vehicle bearing registration No. TRI 3817 (Canter), contending inter alia that their predecessor-in-interest who was a Constable of Tripura Police and was on traffic duty at the 1st Battalion Gate, Police Reserve, was dashed and ran over by the said vehicle and though was taken to G. B. Hospital, but was declared dead. It was also contended in the claim application that the deceased monthly income was Rs. 2600/- and was aged about 42 years and the owner of the vehicle is Shri Priya Vart Choudhury, the appellant herein. The said claim application was registered as T. S. No. 48 (MAC)/91 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. The respondents/claimants also prayed for passing an order U/s. 140 of the Act. During the pendency of the said claim application, Dilip Dey died and in his place, the present respondents No. 7 (i) to 7 (iii) were substituted.

(2.) THE present appellant filed objection denying the contention of the claimants that he was the owner of the vehicle in question, since at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was leased out to Dilip Dey and Sudip Kumar Dey by a lease deed dated 22. 07. 1989 and said Dilip Dey and Sudip Kumar Dey are solely liable to pay compensation, if any, awardable by the learned Tribunal. In the said objection, the appellant also prayed for a direction to the claimants to take necessary steps for impleading said Dilip Dey and Sudip Kumar Dey as parties in the proceeding. On the basis of such assertion by the present appellant in the objection, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 7 (i) to 7 (iii) and the respondent No. 8 were impleaded in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company also filed their written objection contending that they are not liable for reimbursement of compensation that might be awarded by the learned Tribunal against the owner of the vehicle, as the policy of insurance which was issued in respect of the said vehicle was cancelled because of the fact that the cheque issued towards payment of premium was dishonoured by the Bank. It was further contended that the insurance policy was initially issued by the Insurance Company covering the risk of the present appellant and not Dilip Dey.

(3.) THE predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 7 (i) to 7 (iii) and the respondent No. 8 also filed joint objection stating inter alia that they are no way connected with the vehicle in question and are not the owners of the vehicle. They have also denied execution of any agreement with the present appellant in respect of the said vehicle.