ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HULASI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.2.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 1,05,000 in favour of respondent-claimant Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant and respondent No. 5.

(2.) Briefly stated facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that on 2.8.1989 respondent No. 5 Prahalad Ram and deceased Om Prakash were proceeding from Siwana to Balotra on a motor cycle No. RNQ 4683 which was owned and driven by the respondent No. 5 and was under a valid insurance with the appellant on the relevant date. It was averred that the respondent No. 5 was driving the motor cycle at a great speed, rashly and negligently. The said motor cycle suddenly went off the road to its wrong side and collided with a tree at road side. Om Prakash who was a pillion rider of the said motor cycle sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries. The claimants who are legal representatives and dependants of the deceased Om Prakash filed a claim petition before Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,20,000 against the owner and driver of the said motor cycle as also against the appellant insurer. The respondent No. 5 filed the written statement wherein it was admitted that the deceased Om Prakash was pillion rider on the motor cycle which was driven by respondent No. 5, however, plea was taken whereby fact of negligence of the driver was denied. It was further pleaded that the said motor cycle was hit by a truck from behind which resulted in the said accident. The appellant also filed the written statement and in para 10 (g) of the written statement, it was admitted that the said vehicle was insured for the period from 26.12.88 to 25.12.1989 as such on the date of accident, i.e., 2.8.1989 the said motor cycle was under valid insurance with the appellant. An additional plea was raised by the appellant that since the deceased Om Prakash was pillion rider and, therefore, the appellant denied its liability. The Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues. The issue No. 3 is relevant which is as under: "As to whether the insurance company is not liable because Om Prakash was a pillion rider."

(3.) Learned Tribunal decided the issue of negligence in favour of the claimants. Issue of quantum, i.e., issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the claimants. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 were decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimants and awarded the compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 in favour of the claimants and held the appellant insurer liable for compensation.