CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MUNESH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above detailed two appeals i.e. filed by the Insurance Company and FAO No.4223 of 2014 filed by claimants, against award dated 27.03.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred as 'The Tribunal') whereby 'The Tribunal' awarded compensation of Rs.32,05,000/ - on account of death of Satish Kumar in motor vehicle accident. FAO No.6611 of 2014

(2.) RELEVANT facts for the purpose of decision of the appeals that on 19.02.2011 Satish Kumar (since deceased) was going on foot near village Malpura on National Highway No.8. When he reached near Kailash Dharam Kanta, a truck/trailer bearing registration No.HR -47 -L -2551 came from the side of Dharuhera being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck the deceased from behind and resultantly Satish Kumar fell down. Respondent No.1 applied brakes and in the process, iron structures loaded in the truck/trailer came in contact with electricity wire passing over the National Highway. When Satish Kumar tried to get up by taking support of the truck/trailer he was electrocuted due to the electric current flowing in the body of the truck/trailer. Thereafter respondent No.1 fled away from the spot. Satish Kumar was taken to HWay Hospital, Dharuhera where he was declared dead. Matter was reported to the police on the same date. Claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/ - as he was earning Rs.70,000/ - per month.

(3.) RESPONDENT contested the claim petition. Respondent No.1 took the plea that accident had not taken place because of rash and negligent driving on his part rather the accident had taken place because of negligence on the part of deceased himself. Respondent -insurance company took the plea that truck/trailer bearing No.HR -47 -L -2551 has been falsely impleaded in this case in connection with respondent No.1 and others. More so, respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence and insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. On this fact 'The Tribunal' appreciated the evidence available on file and returned the findings that accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and Satish Kumar had died because of electrocuted and has awarded the compensation. Both the appeals are challenging this award.