JAGRAM Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 25th January, 2001 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarhbas, decreed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the appellants-claimants and against the respondents No.1 & 2, jointly and severally. The Tribunal absolved respondent No.3-United India Insurance Co. from its liability and thus, dismissed the claim against the same.

(2.) THE grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal wrongly absolved the Insurance Co. from its liability whereas the owner of the vehicle had paid premium of Rs.1,051/- in cash to the Insurance Co. and rest of the amount was paid through cheque, albeit, the same was dishonoured by the Bank for want of sufficient funds. Learned counsel for the appellant further canvassed that the accident, in the instant case, took place on 15th June, 1995 at about 7.15 PM, whereas the Insurance policy was cancelled by the Insurance Co. on 16th June, 1995 i.e. one day after the accident. Since the Insurance policy was in existence on the date of accident, the Insurance Co. was liable to pay the amount of compensation. He has cited the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur and ors. reported in 1998 ACJ 123, in support thereof.

(3.) HAVING reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material including the impugned award on record, it is noticed that on 15th June, 1995 at 7.15 PM the appellants along with their son boarded one Metador bearing registration No.RJ-02-2760, from Bus stand Kishangarhbas. It is alleged that the driver of the Metador was driving the vehicle at a very fast speed. No sooner did the vehicle reach near Bambora, the Metador, on account of being driven rashly and negligently, jumped into a pit and capsized, resulting into the injuries on the persons of the passengers and death of one Ms. Rona-daughter of the appellants-claimants. Undeniably and undisputedly, the Metador was insured for carrying goods and not for carrying passengers. This fact has been put-forth by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, but at the same time it has not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellants.