RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeals have been filed under Sec. 173 MV Act of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dtd. 4/6/2012 passed by learned Judge, MACT Jaitaran, District Pali in Claim Case no. 83/2009 whereby the learned Judge, MACT Cases has partly allowed the claim petition of the claimants for a sum of Rs.4,08,000.00 along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and on account of violation of the condition of permit by the owner of the Truck, the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner. The claimants has filed the appeal for the enhancement of the award amount whereas, the Insurance company has challenged the award.

(2.) Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the respondents no. 1 to 5 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran District Pali, stating therein that on 17/5/2009, when the deceased Mahendra and Kishore Ram were travelling on motor cycle driven by one Om Prakash from Jaitaran towards Anandpur Kalu, when near Banjakudi they were hit by one Truck 409 no. RJ-19-GA-221which was coming from opposite direction which was being driven by its driver respondent no. 6 Shravan Kumar in highly rash and negligent manner resulting into taking place of the accident in which all the 3 persons riding on motor cycle namely Om Prakash (driver of motor cycle) and Mahendra and Kishore Ram(pillion riders of the motor cycle) sustained injuries who succumbed to injuries.

(3.) The respondents no.6 and 7 who were the driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle respectively filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle as the motor cycle has gone on the middle of the road as a result of which the truck coming from the opposite direction hit the motor cycle for which no liability could be fastened on the driver of the truck. It was also pleaded by the respondents that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the liability to pay compensation is upon the insurance company.