NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. POOJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this appeal, the insurer has assailed the correctness of the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"). A claim petition, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act") has been allowed by the learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation at Rs. 45,49,936/- on account of the death of late Sh. Davinder Singh, aged about 37 years, in a motor vehicular accident. As per the case of the respondent-claimants, late Sh. Davinder Singh was going to Talwara from his village on his scooter. When he reached near the turning point of village Bhera on Mukerian-Talwara road, the offending truck, being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed by respondent-Ajay Kumar, hit the scooter of the deceased. The deceased fell down on the road and succumbed to his injuries. It is pleaded that the accident was witnessed by Surjit Singh, Karnail Singh, Ranjit Singh, Neeraj, Davinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and others. It is claimed that the deceased was employed at Amana Steel Buildings Contracting LLC, Dubai, U.A.E. at the salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month besides free lodging/accommodation and meals. It is also pleaded that the deceased had another job offer from M/s Dogma General Constructing, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. Upon notice, the respondent No.1 contested the claim petition by claiming that the claim pleaded is highly exaggerated. It is also pleaded that he was not driving the vehicle rashly, negligently and at a high speed. The respondent No.1 claimed that the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the deceased. The insurer contested the petition by claiming that respondent No.1 did not have a valid driving license and the truck had no route permit, registration certificate and fitness certificate.

(2.) The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined as many as four witnesses including an eye witness-Karnail Singh. On the other hand, the respondents did not lead any oral evidence.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondentscaveators.