ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAJIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM-8093-CII-2019 : This application has been filed for condoning the delay of 45 days in filing this application. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 45 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

(2.) Briefly stating, the case of the claimants as set up in the claim petition is that one Mustak Kamal (since deceased), who was coming to Dharuhera from his village, met with an accident with the vehicle, i.e., Bolero car bearing No. HR-28D-5800, near village Budhla, District Rewari on 27/2/2017 and he died at the spot. FIR was lodged on 28/2/2017 for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Kasola and the information was given by the brother of the deceased, viz., Tahir Khan. In the claim petition it has been stated that the deceased was 45 yeas of age at the time of accident and was working as a Deed Writer besides being agriculturist and was earning Rs.25,000.00 per month and all the claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The applicants claimed an amount of Rs.50.00 Lakhs as compensation.

(3.) The respondents appeared upon notice and resisted the claim by filing their separate written statements. The respondent No. 1, i.e., the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, took a stand that actually no accident had taken place at the given date and the petition has been filed simply for extorting money from him. However, in alternative he pleaded that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the offending vehicle, since it was duly insured with respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, thus, Insurance Company would be duty bound to indemnify him. The respondent No. 2-the Oriental Insurance Company, took objection in its written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive it at the time of alleged accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, thus, it has been pleaded that respondent No. 2 is not liable to indemnify the owner/driver.