NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JAMUNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.9.92 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Madhubani, in Claim Case No. 8 of 1987, whereby the learned Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in purported exercise of his power modified the judgment and award dated 26.2.1992 and has held that the entire amount of compensation is payable by the appellant Insurance Company.

(2.) In order to appreciate the case, it is necessary to state a few facts. Claim Case No. 8 of 1987 was filed by the claimant-respondents in the Court of the District Judge, Madhubani, claiming compensation of rupees three lakhs on account of death of Ram Chandra Sharma, son of opposite party No. 1, who met with an accident on 13.4.1987 caused by rash and negligent driving of a bus bearing registration No. BPE 3675 owned by respondent No. 10, which vehicle was running from Muzaffarpur to Benipatti as M/s Prabhat Travels. The said bus dashed against the motor-cycle owned by the deceased. The accident is said to have taken place at village Mohan Badhiyan on Sakari Darbhanga road about 1 K.M. west of Sakari Chowk. The vehicle which met with the accident was being driven by the deceased with on Birendra Kumar Pandey who happened to be the bhagina of the deceased. It was alleged that, on account of the accident, the deceased sustained serious injury and died on way to Darbhanga Medical College Hospital. The deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of his death and was a teacher in Brahmarshi Prathmik Sah-Madhya Vidyalaya in village Panchratna.

(3.) Notice of the claim case was sent to the owner, respondent No. 10, who was opposite party No. 1 therein, but, in spite of service of notice, the respondent owner neither appeared nor contested the case. The appellant Insurance Company appeared and contested the case by filing written statement stating, inter alia, that the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company but liability was limited under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further stated that respondent No. 10 did not inform about the alleged accident which is an essential condition of the insurance contract. It was also stated that, in absence of police report, driving licence, post mortem report, age proof certificate and income certificate, P.S.V badge, route permit, fitness of the vehicle, no liability devolves on the appellant Insurance Company.