ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. NEELAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of appeal at hand, appellant-Insurance Company has challenged Award dated 5.7.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. camp at Nalagarh in M.A.C. Petition No. 27-NL/2 of 2012, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,90,500.00 has been awarded in favour of respondents No.1 to 4-claimants (hereinafter, 'claimants') holding appellant-Insurance Company (hereinafter, 'Insurance Company') and respondent No.5, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till deposit of the entire amount.

(2.) Facts in brief, as are necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that the a petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed for grant of compensation on account of death of one Manjit Kumar, on behalf of the claimants who are wife, son, daughter and mother, respectively, of the deceased. Facts disclosed in the petition are that on 6.7.2012, at around 11.15 am, when Manjit Kumar while driving Santro Car bearing registration No. CH-01-AG-0873, reached near bus stand Kohara, Bhura, Tehsil Nalagarh, his car was hit by Maxi Cab bearing registration No. HR-58(T)-3920 coming from opposite side being driven by respondent No.5 in high speed, resulting into death of Manjit Kumar. Matter was reported to police and FIR was lodged. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Civil Hospital Naraingarh. It is claimed in the petition that deceased was running business in the name and style of M/s Sai Engineering Works at Baddi and also running dairy farm and was earning Rs. 29,000.00 per month i.e. Rs. 15,000.00 from his business and Rs. 14,000.00 from dairy farm. As per claimants, Manjit Kumar was the sole bread earner of the family.

(3.) Respondent No. 5, while filing the reply, denied the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident and alleged that accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in any case, offending vehicle being insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, it was liable to indemnify the claimants. On the other hand, appellant-Insurance Company contested the petition by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, collusion and offending being plied in violation of the terms and conditions insurance policy. On merits, factum of accident was denied for want of knowledge.