LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-186

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANURADHA

Decided On August 05, 2013
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
ANURADHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal brought by New India Assurance Company Limited against the award dated 19.08.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (for short 'the Tribunal'). Vide the impugned award, the claim petition of Smt. Anuradha and others has been allowed awarding a sum of Rs. 19,26,000/ -. In this case, the responsibility to satisfy the award has been held to be joint and several of the respondents. The grievance of the appellant is that recovery rights have not been given to it against the owner -driver of the vehicle. It is a case where Bhola Singh, a 36 years old Head Constable with Punjab Police met with fatal accident. A claim had been made by his dependents for Rs. 40,00,000/ -, which was resisted by the respondents. Respondent No. 2 had claimed that the truck was plied without valid route permit and, therefore, the answering respondent is not liable to satisfy the award.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the offending truck was being plied in Punjab State without a valid route permit. According to him, no evidence was led to prove that the truck bearing registration No. UP -11G -7629 was having a valid route permit for being plied in the State of Punjab or even in the State of U.P. He has further submitted that argument was raised before learned Tribunal that the offending truck was not insured with the insurance company and it was being plied without requisite documents. Learned Tribunal appears to have noticed copy of insurance policy as Ex.R -1, a copy of registration certificate Ex.R -2 and a copy of driving licence as Ex.R -3 and without taking into account the absence of route permit, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants and held the respondents jointly and severally liable to satisfy the same and gave no recovery rights to the appellant.

(3.) NONE has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5, the owner was served for 03.05.2012 and on non appearance of anyone on his behalf, he was proceeded against ex -parte. However, notice was again ordered to be issued to respondent No. 5, this time by publication by way of munadi. Still service was effected and none appeared for him.