BHARAT KHARBANDA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Claim Petition No. 96 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), which was decided by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short 'the learned Tribunal') vide award dated 18.8.2005, petitioner was respondent No. 2, being the owner of the offending truck. That claim petition was filed by one Bimli and her three minor daughters and two minor sons, being the widow and children of deceased Rajman Ram, who died on 26.7.2002 in a motor vehicular accident involving the truck bearing registration No. HRU 8149 owned by the petitioner herein.

(2.) ON the basis of evidence led by the parties that claim petition was allowed and compensation of Rs. 3,72,620 was awarded to the claimants-respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Raish Ali, respondent No. 2, who was driving the offending truck at the time of accident did not appear in the witness-box. His driving licence was, however, produced on record as Exh. R1. It was found by learned Tribunal that the said licence was meant for driving LMV (light motor vehicle), whereas registration certificate Exh. R2 of the offending truck (HRU 8149) revealed that it was HTV (heavy transport vehicle). Thus, it was found that Raish Ali, respondent No. 2, driver while holding a LMV driving licence was driving HTV and as such there was a clear-cut breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Accordingly, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation at the first instance and thereafter to recover the same from the insured, i.e., petitioner Bharat Kharbanda, being the registered owner of the offending truck.

(3.) ARMED with the recovery rights, the insurance company after making payment of compensation to the claimants/dependants of the deceased, filed an execution application against the petitioner-owner and respondent driver of the offending truck, before the learned Tribunal.