ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUKHMANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been directed against the award dated 24.9.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad awarding compensation in regard to death of Dinesh Kumar aged 18 years in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of Tata 407 bearing No. HR-38-H 6795.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that Smt. Sukhmani, mother of the deceased filed claim for compensation on the allegations that on 6.2.2007, Dinesh Kumar conductor/cleaner on vehicle No. HR 38-H-6795 was accompanying the driver alongwith Rajeev Chand, an accountant of the company/owner of goods from industrial area, Nabipur Kosi Kalan to Noida. When the vehicle reached in the area of Jharr Sentli on national highway G.T.Road, respondent No. 1 drove the vehicle at a high speed, rashly and negligently and in the process of overtaking a trailor, he could not control the vehicle and hit left side of the truck against right side body of the trailor. Dinesh sustained injuries in the occurrence, was admitted in Escorts Hospital, Faridabad for treatment but succumbed to injuries at 12.30 p.m. on 7.2.2007. FIR No. 59 dated 7.2.2007 under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Sector-55, Faridabad on the complaint of Rajeev Chand. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and admitted that Dinesh suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident and succumbed to those injuries on 7.2.2009. However, they denied the accident being result of rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle by its driver with the plea that respondent No. 1 was driving his truck at a normal speed but while overtaking the trailor, going ahead in the same direction lost control due to some snag in the steering wheel of the truck. Respondent No. 3 (insurance company) also filed its reply and, in turn, raised preliminary objections challenging maintainability of the petition in the present form; locus standi to file the petition; petition being false and frivolous filed by the claimant in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, brother and father of the deceased; driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the owner/insured was not having valid route permit, carriage permit etc. thus, violated terms and conditions of insurance policy. All other material averments of the petition were denied with a prayer for dismissal of the claim application.

(3.) The controversy between the parties led to framing of following issues by the Tribunal:-