NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PANCHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988') has been filed against the award dated 09.01.2008, passed by the MACT, Kishangarh, District Ajmer in Motor Accident Claim No.43/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claimant's petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 inter alia against the non-claimant-appellant-Insurance Company (hereinafter 'the Insurance Company') and required it to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- in the aggregate as compensation, excluding the amount already paid under Section 140 of the Act of 1988, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment of the amount in issue.

(2.) A claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed stating that on 06.01.2006, the claimant's brother Chhotu, since deceased, was riding his bicycle from Madanganj, Kishangarh back to his village after selling milk. A truck bearing registration No.RJ.19-G-6527 being driven rashly and negligently by the non-claimant, Sawai Ram (respondent No.2 before this Court), hit the bicycle of Chhotu from behind and crushed him under the wheels of the truck. Chhotu died on the spot due to the injuries sustained. It was further stated that the offending vehicle No.RJ.19-G-6527 was in the ownership of one Anada Ram (respondent No.3 before this Court) and was insured with the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Branch Jodhpur also arrayed as a party in the claim petition.

(3.) On notice being served of the claim petition, the Insurance Company in its written statement submitted that the claim petition itself was not maintainable inter alia on the ground that the claimant was not entitled to file the same under the provisions of Section 166(1)(c) of the Act of 1988 in view of the fact that he was not the legal representative of the deceased Chhotu and was merely the brother of the deceased. It was submitted that until a succession certificate was filed by the claimant or it otherwise established that the deceased Chhotu had no class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1956'), the claim petition at his instance was not maintainable. It was further submitted that even otherwise the claimant at the time of laying the claim petition was 35 years of age working man and therefore he could not conceivably be taken to be a dependant on the deceased Chhotu. Other grounds also taken in defence by the Insurance Company but negatived by the Tribunal are not being pressed in this appeal.