NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DAIZY HANDOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Srinagar in the claim petition No: 115/2002 titled Daizy Handoo & ors v. National Insurance Co. and others.

(2.) THE matter relates to an accident which took place on Srinagar -Jammu National Highway on 10.3.2002. The deceased Daleep Kumar Handoo son of Kashi Nath Handoo R/o Indira Nagar Srinagar who was working in the J&K Bank Ltd. Branch Badami Bagh Cantonment Srinagar as cashier -cum -clerk, was travelling in a Sumo bearing registration No. JK01E/6441 from Srinagar to Jammu to celebrate Mahashivratri festival at Jammu with his family. The said Sumo was being driven by respondent Mohammad Shafi Dar Son of Khazir Mohd Dar R/o Khawajapora Rainawari Srinagar who was also the owner of the said vehicle. It is alleged that driver was driving it rashly and negligently due to which it met with an accident at Lower Munda, Qazi Gund on National Highway. The vehicle fell into a deep gorge causing fatal injuries to the deceased to which he succumbed on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased namely 1) Daizy Handoo wife of Late Daleep Kumar Handoo, 2) Diskshaw Handoo (minor aged 3 years) D/o Late Dalip Kumar Handoo, and 3) Vishal Handoo (minor aged 7 months) S/o Late Daleep Kumar Handoo, filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Srinagar. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal in the case: - "1. Whether on 10.3.2002 Mohd Shafi Dar respondent No. 3 was plying TATA Sumo No. JK01E/6441 so rashly and negligently that near Lower -Munda Qazigund National Highway he lost control of the vehicle which fell into a deep gorge and Daleep Kumar Handoo who was travelling in the same died on spot? OPP. 2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident and as such the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability? OPR -1.

(3.) IN case the Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to from whom and in what proportion? OPP.