BHANWAR LAL Vs. GORKHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the impugned Award dated 3. 1. 1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in M. A. C. T. Claim No. 60/1997 fastening the "no fault liability" of Rs. 50, 000/-to the driver and owner of the vehicle and exoneration respondent No. 3 the insurance company-from the said liability.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner owned the truck having registration No. RRG 2712 and the same had been insured with respondent No. 3, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. . One Narain Ram, who is defendant No. 1 in the claim petition and has not been impleaded in this petition, was possessing a learning driving licence valid from 24. 2. 1997 to 23. 8. 97 and when he was driving the said vehicle on 13. 3. 97 it met with an accident which resulted in the death of a twelve years old boy Ghamanda Ram the son of claimants No. 1 and 2. THE claimants filed the Claim Case No. 60/1997 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation. However, the dispute arose regarding the interim award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") for "no fault liability". THErein respondent No. 3, the insurance company, took a plea that it was not liable to pay the same as the vehicle, at the relevant time, had been driven by an unauthorised person and the driver was holding merely a learner's driving licence and he was not duly effective licence-holder. THE learned Tribunal placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Mandar Yadav Tambe (1), allowed the contention of the insurance company and exonerated it from the liability of interim award. Hence this petition.

(3.) MR. Punia, learned counsel for the petitioner has valiantly tried to develop a case on the basis of Form 51, as explained above, but the submission made by him is preposterous for the reason that petitioner failed to lay down any factual foundation that the person, who was driving the vehicle and met the accident, had anything to do with the requirement of Sec. 3 of the Act or rule 141 of the Rules, 1989, nor there is anything on record even before this Court, nor is there any averment in the petition that at the relevant time, the vehicle was not carrying the goods. Thus, in absence of the averments and pleadings to this effect, such an argument is not tenable.