NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, dated 2nd June, 2006, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 was allowed and compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,95,000/ - alongwith interest was awarded in favour of the claimants and as against the appellant/company.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by respondents No. 1 to 4, hereinafter also referred to as 'the claimants '. It was filed in regard to the death of Suresh alias Devi Ram who was going to his house in three wheeler No. HP -05 -1234. It was alleged that respondent Ganga Ram (respondent No. 4) before me was driving the three wheeler in a high speed and it reached near village Falfani, where he could not control the three wheeler and it struck with tractor No. HP -31 - 4160 coming from the opposite direction. The three wheeler went off the road and both the passengers sitting in the said three wheeler also rolled down and died on the spot. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 jumped out of the three wheeler to save himself and did not disclose the fact of above said accident to any one and ran away from the place of occurrence. Respondent Ganga Ram managed to lodge an FIR by suppressing the facts. It was alleged that the deceased was serving in Ayurvedic Department and was earning Rs. 8,000/ - per month.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned Tribunal : 1. Whether on 30th April, 2004 at about 9 p.m. near village Falfani, respondent No. 1 was driving the three wheeler bearing No. HP 5/1234 in rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of Suresh alias Devi Ram, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR -2 4. Relief.