MUNSHI RAM Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by the claimant against the award dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which his petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the death of his wife, Neelam in an accident arising out of the use of motorcycle bearing registration No. PB- 48C-0736 on 5.8.2008, had been dismissed. The petitioner has made the following claim in his petition.

(2.) On 5.8.2008, Neelam (deceased) along with her son Harinder Singh and grand son was going to village Chaswal from Amloh on motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-48-C- 0736. It was driven by Harinder Singh. Neelam was sitting on the pillion of the motorcycle having her grand son between her and Harinder Singh. When they were ahead of Grain Market, Bhadson, Harinder Singh suddenly applied brakes to the motorcycle on account of which Neelam fell down. Her head banged against the road. Neelam was taken to Civil Hospital, Bhadson and was referred to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, from where she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. She died on 8.8.2008. An entry about this accident was made in the daily diary of Police Station Bhadson at No. 29 on 6.8.2008. Neelam was aged 54 years and she was the only female member in the family to manage the household. She was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and hence, compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been claimed.

(3.) On notice, the claim petition has been resisted by United India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 1. The claim is, however, admitted by respondent No. 2, Harinder Singh. Respondent No. 1 has claimed that the driver of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident. It is also claimed that the claim petition is not maintainable under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act. It is added that the claim has been filed by the father of respondent No. 2 and they are in collusion with each other to get easy money from the Insurance company. The other averments of the claimant are denied and the petition is prayed to be dismissed.