SANJU RAJU Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants" for short) in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) is directed against the order dated 28.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban (hereinafter "the Tribunal") in File No.51/Claims titled Sanju Raju and others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and others, whereby the claim petition of the claimants has been dismissed being not maintainable under Section 166 of the Act.

(2.) The relevant facts as are necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be noticed. On 16.04.2012, the deceased Rattan Singh, husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 and 3 was standing on one side of the National Highway at Mehar Ramban. A truck bearing Registration No.JK02T/6337 driven by respondent No.3 in rash and negligent manner, which was coming from Jammu side, hit the deceased resulting his death on spot. The claimants, who lost their bread-winner, filed the claim petition in terms of Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents before the Tribunal and claimed a sum of Rs. 6,50,16,504/- by way of compensation. The claimants, in the petition, claimed that the deceased at the time of his death was 44 years of age and a businessman earning Rs. 4,46,542/- per month. Upon being put on notice, the respondent No.1, the insurer of the offending vehicle, alone entered appearance through its counsel and contested the petition. The other respondents, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 despite service did not appear before the Tribunal and as such there were proceeded ex parte. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and the documents on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(3.) With a view to discharge the onus of the issues and prove their case, the claimants examined Parshotam Singh and Neeraj Kumar as their witnesses. The claimant No. 1 also entered into the witness-box as her own witness. The insurer i.e. the respondent No.1 examined Shiv Kumar Gupta, Assistant Manager of the Insurer, Anil Suri, the Chamail Singh (driver) and Avinash Singh (owner) as its witnesses. The Tribunal, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence brought on record by the parties oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that claimants had failed to prove that deceased Rattan Singh had died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.3 and thus held the claim petition not maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition of the claimants was thus dismissed vide order impugned. The claimants are aggrieved of the order impugned and seek to challenge the same inter alia on the following grounds: