SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SAKINA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurer of the offending vehicle, has, instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherethrough, it, casts, a, challenge, upon, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Mandi, upon, Claim Petition No. 15/2015, as stood, cast therebefore, under, the provisions of Section 166, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (i) AND, whereunder, compensation amount, comprised in, a sum of Rs.17, 36, 912/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, was, hence ordered to commence, from, the date of petition till realization thereof, rather stood, assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, (ii) and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant/insurer, has, not contested, the, validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, hence appertaining to the demise of Mansa Ram, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.6. The deceased, Mansa Ram, as visible, on a reading of, the, postmortem report, borne in Ex.PW2/A, begot his end, for the reasons as disclosed therein, (a) and, PW-2, who during the course of his examination-in-chief, hence tendered into evidence, the, postmortem report, and, also enabled its exhibition, and, his also obviously proving the afore exhibit, rather carries disclosures therein qua the afore cause of demise, being a sequel of a road side accident, (b) thereupon, it is to be concluded that the demise of the afore deceased, hence, germinating, from, rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by its owner-cum-driver.

(3.) Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer, has contended, that (a) with the registration certificate appertaining to the offending vehicle, and, exhibited as Ex.RW1/C, and, it making a categorical echoing qua it being registered, rather as a light goods vehicle, (b) and, when it is construable, to be hence a goods carrier, thereupon, he contends (c) that when the claimants were hence enjoined to adduce cogent proof, vis-a-vis, the deceased, at the relevant time, occupying the offending vehicle not as a gratuitous passenger, rather as the owner, of the goods concerned, (d) whereas, with the FIR borne in Ex.PW3/A, not making any bespeaking in consonance therewith, thereupon, he contends that the deceased hence was travelling in the offending vehicle, as a gratuitous passenger, (e) and further thereonwards, he also makes, a, vehement espousal before this Court that, the, fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle, hence, registered, as, a goods carrier vehicle, rather warranting interference, by this Court.