MANDEEP Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the abovementioned two appeals bearing FAO No.5125 of 2014 preferred by the driver and owner and FAO No.3483 of 2017 preferred by the claimant against the award dated 04.03.2014. The appeal by the driver and the owner has been filed on the ground that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated and the liability has been fastened on the driver and the owner while the claimant, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, has preferred the appeal.

(2.) The facts relevant to the present case are that on 02.01.2013 at about 2 o'clock the deceased Aftab and the driver, namely, Saheed were performing their respective duties on vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55-E-1101. The deceased Aftab, who was conductor of the said vehicle, was removing stones from the tyre near Village Atta in the area of Police Station Rozka-Meo when vehicle bearing registration No. HR-74- A-0245, which was being driven by respondent No.1 (in FAO No.3483 of 2017) in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck against the deceased Aftab, as a result of which Aftab received multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. An FIR was registered regarding the said accident. A claim petition was filed by the parents and siblings of Aftab. In the claim petition, it was stated that Aftab was working as a conductor and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and that all the claimants were dependent upon the deceased. It had further been stated that an amount of Rs.60,000/- had been spent on transportation of the dead body and last rites of the deceased.

(3.) Upon notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (in FAO No.3483 of 2017) filed a written statement raising the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability, locus standi and concealment of material facts. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied. It was further asserted that the FIR was falsely registered against respondent No.1 (in FAO No.3483 of 2017) on the statement of the complainant. Respondent No.3 (in FAO No.3483 of 2017), i.e., the Insurance Company filed its written statement taking various preliminary objections and one of the objections raised was that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the owner of the vehicle was guilty of breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On merits, the factum of the accident was denied.