ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIMLA CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This FAO by the Insurance Company arises out a judgment/award dated 2.5.2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, in MACT Case No. 122 of 2004, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in death case of an unmarried young girl of 20.

(2.) It appears that on the date of accident, i.e., 20.7.2004, the deceased, Miss Gesu Chawla, was travelling as pillion rider on Motorcycle (DL-95-P-0466), said to be driven by another deceased Shambu Parshad at a moderate speed and also on the extreme left side of the road. The moment the motorcycle was being driven past the crossing of Sectors 24, 25, 37 and 38, Chandigarh, the offending vehicle, being a truck (HP-14-1209), came from behind being driven rashly and negligently. As a result, the motorcycle was run over and, rather, crushed. The driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot after the accident. Both the motorcycle riders died at the spot. The accident was witnessed by Head Constable Virender Singh of Chandigarh Police and he himself apprehended the truck driver. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, therefore, an FIR (335 dated 20.7.2004) was registered against the driver under Sections 279 and 337 IPC at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh.

(3.) The claimants laid a claim in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the death case of deceased Gesu Chawla. The deceased was an intelligent girl and after passing 10+2 examination, she had joined DVIET examination. She was studying in last semester of the course. She was also receiving training in the Patnik Computer Service, Chandigarh. On passing out, she would have earned a salary of Rs. 10,000/-, besides other perks according to her qualifications. The deceased was also taking care of her father, who was a lever tumor cancer patient and was also suffering from paralytic attack. The claimants also alleged to have spent Rs. 20,000/- on transportation etc. The appellant-Insurance Company has not been granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short `the Act'), to contest the case on merits, hence, the submission of learned Counsel is confined to the validity of the driving licence. As per driving licence (Ex.R-1), placed on record by the driver himself, he was holding a valid driving licence only for driving light transport vehicles, whereas the offending vehicle was a heavy transport vehicle. Learned Counsel also referred to the verification report (Ex.R-3) in this regard.