NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RUKHSANA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The National Insurance Co.Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurer") is in appeal against the award dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (for short, "the Tribunal") in File No.21/2011 titled Ruksana Begum and others v. National Insurance Company Ltd and others whereby the Insurer has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization to the respondents 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the claimants").

(2.) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the deceased Shabir Hussain Matto while driving his vehicle bearing registration No.JK05A/3846 (Truck) met an accident due to mechanical failure and as a result, died on spot. The Claim Petition was filed against Abdul Rehman Ganai, Zaffar Ahmad Rather and Nazir Ahmad Rather (the owners of the offending vehicle involved in the accident). The claim petition was contested by the Insurer only whereas respondents 6 to 8 despite notice did not appear to contest the Claim Petition and were set exparte. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(3.) The claimants besides examining one of the claimants, namely, Ruksana Begum, also examined Nazir Ahmed Shah and Imtiyaz Ahmad as their witnesses. The Insurer, however, chose not to lead any evidence in rebuttal. Upon appreciation of evidence led in the Claim Petition, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 proved in favour of the claimants. The Tribunal returned a categoric finding that the deceased Shabir Hussain had died as a result of injuries received in an accident involving the offending vehicle on 09.02.2008 at Digdol, Ramban due to mechanical failure. So far as the issue no.2 is concerned, relying upon the case law relevant to the facts brought on record by the claimants, the Tribunal held the claimants entitled to a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- by way of compensation. Regarding issue no.3, the Tribunal concluded that onus to prove the issue was on the Insurer, which it failed to discharge despite sufficient opportunities granted. The Insurer did not lead any evidence. It is in these circumstances, the award came to be passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants and against the respondents.