MEHBOOB ALI KAR Vs. MST. JUMLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two Claim Petitions in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M. V. Act') came to be filed by two Claimants, namely Mst. Jumli W/O Lassi Harray and Mst. Zeba W/O Mohammad Sultan before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kupwara (for short 'the Tribunal'), seeking compensation for the deaths of their husband and son, respectively, in a vehicular road traffic accident on 5th of November, 2003, when the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK01E 9227 (Tata Sumo) was being driven by its driver Abdul Khaliq Dobi, at Khetian, Mohammad Ramzan Lone, son of Claimant-Mst. Zaiba, had died on spot and Lassi Harray, husband of Claimant-Jumli had got injured and was referred to District Hospital, Kupwara wherefrom he was referred to SKIMS, where he succumbed to his injuries. A case, in this behalf, had been registered at Police Station, Kupwara, for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279 and 304-A RPC vide FIR No. 274/2003.

(2.) The learned Tribunal decided both the Claim Petitions, which had been registered as File Nos. 33 and 34 of 2004, by a common Award dated 21st of October, 2011, thereby granting compensation to the tune of Rs.3,27,000.00, including interim relief, in favour of the Claimant-Mst. Jumli and her sons and daughters for the death of Lassi Harray, whereas an amount of Rs.2,93,000.00, including interim relief, was granted to Claimant-Mst. Zeba for the death of Mohammad Ramzan Lone. The Tribunal also awarded interest @ 7.5 % per annum over the aforesaid amounts from the date of institution of Claim Petitions till realization of the said amounts. Since, the Award was passed against the Respondent-Insurance Company with a direction to pay the amount to the Claimants with a right to recovery of the same from the insured owner-Respondent No.1/ Appellant herein, he, who was ex-parte before the Tribunal, feeling aggrieved of the Award, has preferred these two Appeals, which have been clubbed and are proposed to be decided by this common Judgment, in as much as, in both the Appeals, the same contentions have been raised.

(3.) Mr M. A. Qayoom, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf the Appellant, argued that as observed in the impugned Award, the Claimant-Mst Jumli had stated before the Tribunal that she had not filed the Claim Petition/ application before the Tribunal, as such, this fact should have gone to the root of the liability fastened on the insured-owner of the offending vehicle. He has further argued that the Appellant, as Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, had been proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 22nd of April, 2004, whereafter he had moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings on 23rd of May, 2011, but the Tribunal, without deciding the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, proceeded ahead to decide the Petitions as a whole, vide impugned Awards, observing therein that the ex-parte proceedings cannot be set aside as the proceedings in the case have been concluded, however, it was observed that the Respondent No.-1, who had been proceeded ex-parte, shall have a right of hearing.