KESHBATTI BAI Vs. KEDAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant miscellaneous appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1988') has been preferred on behalf of the appellants/claimants praying therein that the impugned judgment and award dtd. 30/10/2017 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (DistrictJudge, Dausa) (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal'), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.195/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants had been rejected, be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the matter be remanded back for granting an opportunity for leading evidence to the claimants-appellants and a direction may also be given to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh.

(2.) Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the appellants, who were the claimants in the aforementioned claim case, had filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Jeetu @ Ajeet Singh, husband of appellant No.1, son of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and brother of appellant No.4, in a motor accident, which took place on 25/12/2012, while he was to go to School besides a kachha road on his side at Kailai Bus Stand and was waiting for his friend. Suddenly, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-01-U-0003 being driven rashly and negligently came and hit him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and later-on died. Alleging that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming therein a total compensation of Rs.37,15,000.00 under the various heads.

(3.) Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.I/driver and respondent No.2/owner did not appear despite service, as such the matter proceeded ex-parte against them. Respondent No.3/insurance company filed a written-statement and denied most of the averments of the claim petition and contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of fifteen-days and driver was not having a valid license. The claim petition had been filed under a conspiracy with owner and driver of the vehicle and the Police proceeded just to extort money. There is a breach of policy condition and, therefore, the insurance-company is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No.3/Insurance company, thus, prayed for rejection of the claim petition.