SUBHASH Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the driver and owner i.e. Subhash and M/s. Sarva Hitkari Senior Secondary School against the award of the tribunal dated 18.09.2015 whereby compensation of Rs.7,19,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of death of Dilbag Singh who was 55 years of age, in a road accident which took place on 25.04.2014.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2014 the deceased Dilbag Singh was going to his village Sunderpur from Rohtak on a motorcyle and when he reached near the bus stand of said village, a bus bearing No.HR-63A/9360 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by Subhashrespondent No.1 came from back side and hit his motorcyle from behind. As a result thereof, he fell down on the road and received fatal injuries. He was taken to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak by HC Ram Niwas, where he succumbed to his injuries next day. Consequently, the claimants filed a claim petition before the tribunal.

(3.) The present appeal has been filed against the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 whereby it was held that the bus owned by the appellants was plied outside the route permit limit and the condition of the insurance policy was violated. The appellants have challenged the finding on the issue of route permit. As per the route permit (Ex.R2) of the offending vehicle which was issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, was valid for the period from 25.01.2010 to 13.01.2015. The said permit was to ply the offending vehicle from the premises of the school to Jahangirpur. The claim of the insurance company was that accident had taken place in District Rohtak which was outside the route permit limit. The insurance company had examined its Legal Manager, Pankaj Bhardwaj as RW1 who in his cross-examination stated that offending vehicle was plied outside the route permit limit. Since the offending vehicle was plied outside the permit limit, there was violation in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence, a direction was given by the tribunal to make payment of the compensation firstly by the insurance company and then to recover the same from respondents No.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the offending vehicle by initiating proceedings before the Executing Court.