SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH Vs. SH. HEM RAJ SON OF SHRI DEVI CHAND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAYARI, PO DHUNDAN, TEHSIL ARKI, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P. AND SH. J.D. VERMA SON OF LATE SHRI SUDAMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below is the son of deceased Devi Chand, who died on the spot itself at the age of 50 years, in the accident of vehicle No. HP -34 -A -5653, which occurred on 8.4.2007 around 12.45 p.m., near Bangora, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. Shri Naresh, who also died in the accident, was on the wheels of ill -fated vehicle. As per registration certificate Ext. PW1/B, issued by the Block Medical Officer, Arki, Distict Solan, the deceased father of the claimant was running a shop under the name and style of M/s Thakur Sweet and Karyana shop at Dhundan and allegedly earning Rs. 10,000/ - per month. Thus, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - was claimed as compensation in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 in this writ petition was impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the claim petition in the capacity of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, whereas the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2, being the insurer.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in reply to the claim petition has denied the contentions therein that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle and also that the deceased was running business as well as managing the agriculture affairs and also that he was the only bread earner in the family being wrong. Such submissions in para 24 of the claim petition were stated to be in the special knowledge of the petitioner. It was also denied that a sum of rupees ten lacs was liable to be awarded as compensation. The rest of the contentions in the claim petition were admitted to be correct.

(3.) THE second respondent has submitted by way of preliminary objections that there was no contract of insurance between the said respondent and the insured, respondent No. 1 nor the person on the wheels of the vehicle, in question, was having a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle was also not having a valid registration and fitness certificate at the relevant time nor respondent No. 1 was the registered owner thereof. It is also alleged that the claim petition was filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No. 1 and as such he has not approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, respondent No. 2 -insurer has denied the entire case as set out in the claim petition being wrong.