RAKESH KUMAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, dated 21.6.2005, for enhancement of the amount. This judgment shall also dispose of another appeal No. 442 of 2005 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company praying that the amount of compensation granted is not in accordance with the evidence and settled principles of law and the Insurance Company be held not liable to pay the amount in question. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the appellant hereinafter referred to as the claimants Rakesh Kumar and Prashant, for grant of compensation. It was alleged by the claimants that Smt. Sunita Devi (now deceased) wife of appellant/claimant Rakesh Kumar and mother of claimant Prashant, was going in a Jeep No. HP-55- 2244 from Piplu and at near High School Kot, respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of the vehicle, namely, Ajit Singh, reversed the jeep in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which jeep turned out and the deceased came under the jeep and died. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driver of respondent Ajit Singh, driver of the vehicle. The age of the deceased was alleged as 27 years. The occupation of the deceased as alleged was tuition work and household work. The monthly income of the deceased was alleged at Rs.15,000/- P.M. and the claimants claimed a sum of Rupees Fifteen Lacs as compensation.

(2.) In reply by respondent No. 1 i.e. driver/owner of the vehicle, he denied all the allegations made in the petition. In the reply filed by the Insurance Company, they took up all the objections that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence and that there was no valid registration and the deceased was an unauthorized passenger traveling in the goods vehicle and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the claimants as well as the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance and have gone through the record of the case.