NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.4.99, passed by the learned 4th Addl. District Judg -cum -Addl. Claims Tribunal, Munger, in Claim Case No. 53 of 1997 (Sushila Devi V/s. Ajay Kumar & Ors), whereby claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , has been allowed and the claimant has been granted compensation quantified at Rs. 1,02,000/ - within one month from the date of the order but without any interest.

(2.) AN accident took place on the road near Dakra Pool within the limits of Naya Ramnagar Police Station on 13.8.97 at about 12 noon which led to a criminal case, being Naya Ramnagar PS Case No. 70 of 1997 under Sections 279, 379, 304 IPC. A truck bearing registration no. BR -08G -5051, and insured with the appellant company, had struck one Nitish Kumar, a boy, according to the claimant -applicant, to be of 10 years. As a result of the accident, Nitish Kumar died. However, according to the postmortem report, the boy was aged 8 year at the time of his death. The parents of the deceased filed Claim Case under Section 163A of the Act claiming compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,25,000/ - with interest in addition to the expenses of funeral, loss of consortium loss of estate and for expenses in medical treatment.

(3.) WRITTEN statements were filed by ther owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company. The owner of the vehicle was opposite party no.1 before the Tribunal and took the stand that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and, therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation which is realizable from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was opposite party no. 2 before the Tribunal. In its written statement, the company took the stand that the claim is time -barred, suffers from non -joinder and misjoinder of parties, the owner of the vehicle did not have valid route permit, and the driver of the vehicle has not been made a party. It also took the stand that the driver of the vehicle was not is possession of a valid licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.