UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KASHMIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by United India Insurance co. Ltd. challenging the award under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rewari, dated 2. 3. 2005 vide which the tribunal has been pleased to award a sum of Rs. 2,78,800 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.

(2.) THE case set up by the claimants was that on 29. 5. 1998 deceased Sumer Singh started his journey from Rewari in truck bearing No. HR 36-1361 along with driver ramesh, son of Nand Lal. When they had entered Rajasthan, he was done to death under the extremist activities, about which the respondents totally showed their ignorance. The dead body of deceased Sumer singh was brought to his native village in truck No. HR 36-1361 and a police case was registered in Police Station, Bawal on the statement of Rajender Kumar, son of bakhtawar. It was further claimed that in order to occupy the truck, his murder was committed by poisoning him. On this allegation the claim petition was filed under section 163-A of the Act claiming total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of accident till its realisation. It was claimed that the deceased was aged 39 years at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,200 per month.

(3.) THE petition was contested by the owner Trivani Devi on the allegations that the present petition was not competent as deceased Sumer Singh had not died in any motor vehicle accident and died due to consuming excessive ethyl alcohol which was his wrongful act and it was beyond the control of respondent No. 1 for which respondent No. 1 could not be held liable. It was also denied that Sumer Singh had died in course of employment of answering respondent because Sumer Singh died due to consuming alcohol during the course of employment, therefore, this wrongful act of deceased Sumer Singh was beyond the reach and control of respondent No. 1. It was also denied that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was spent on the last rites of the deceased sumer Singh.