ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RAM GARIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On account of death of one Sunil Kumar alias Bhola in a road side accident, which took place on 4.1.2013 at about 12:00 a.m.(night) in the area of village Binola, National Highway - 8, Jaipur-Delhi Road statedly on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 - Mohd. Hira - driver of truck trailer having registration No.HR-38-B- 2799(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), his legal representatives, namely, his father - Sh.Ram Garib, aged about 62 years, mother - Smt.Prabhu Devi aged about 57 years, minor sister - Baby Suman and minor brother - Master Krishan Kumar had initially brought a claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents i.e. Mohd. Hira - driver, AB Sea Container Pvt. Ltd. - owner and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - insurer of the offending vehicle, claiming compensation. Subsequently, the claimants got the claim petition amended so as to convert it into one under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. They had claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest and cost.

(2.) As per the version of the claimants, on the fateful day i.e. on 4.1.2013, the deceased Sunil Kumar alias Bhola was on duty as a conductor on truck No.HR-47-H-1677, which was going from Bawana Delhi to Bhiwadi; that when the truck reached near village Binola, National Highway - 8, Jaipur - Delhi Road, then the offending vehicle was parked on the road without indicator and without following the prescribed traffic rules, resultantly, the truck in which Sunil Kumar @ Bhola was travelling struck against the offending truck, as a result, he received multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of his body and become unconscious; that Vijay Kumar son of Kharman, driver brought the deceased to General Hospital,Gurgaon, where he was declared dead.

(3.) In the written reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it took up various legal objections with regard to claim petition being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and that the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident. Furthermore, the answering respondent had submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Refuting the remaining allegations in the claim petition, such respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.