MAHIPAL Vs. HARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant -claimant against the award dated 07.08.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'), for the death of Bimla Devi, in a motor vehicular accident vide which the claim petition was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on conjectures and surmises bases. The accident took place due to the composite negligence of the three wheeler and the tractor, the factum regarding the accident was admitted by the driver -cum -owner of the three wheeler, but respondents No. 3 and 4 were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. He further contends that the investigation report Ex. P3 prepared by the assurance company -respondent No. 2 brought on record prove that the accident did take place causing the death of the victim.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company -respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the present appeal by alleging that the offending vehicle was not insured and the husband is not the legal heir of the deceased -wife because the deceased was a deserted woman had been living with her parents after she was deserted by the claimant -appellant. It is further contended that the present appeal has been filed just to grab the compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further contends that earlier claim petition was filed under Section 163 -A wherein it is alleged that unknown truck had hit the three wheeler and caused the accident but the driver of three wheeler was also negligent. The claim petition was amended and converted into a petition under Section 166 of the Act, wherein the names of the driver, owner and insurance company of the tractor were added. During trial, respondent No. 1 changed his version by stating that the accident occurred with the tractor in question.