NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. JAYPRABHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance company against the judgment cum award dated 7.9.2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in MAC No. 71/2011 whereby the claimants respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 24,19,269/ - upon the death of Shri Manohar Lal Pandya. The facts in brief are that Shri Manohar Lal Pandya, a driver working in the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State Government was going on his motorcycle on 1.6.2010 at 10 O'clock in the morning in his village Patapur. It was alleged that a Maruti Van bearing registration No. RJ12.UA.525 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Vishal, owned by Vijendra and insured with appellant insurance company, collided with the motorcycle of Manohar Lal causing him severe injuries. An FIR was registered in relation to the accident wherein after investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against Vishal in the concerned court. Manohar Lal expired on 6.6.2010 as a result of the injuries.

(2.) THE respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 being the dependents of Manohar Lal filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for total compensation of Rs. 75,56,000/ -. The respondents No. 1 and 2 the owner and driver of the Maruti Van involved in the accident, filed a written statement taking a plea of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself being the cause of the accident. The appellant insurance company filed a written statement claiming that; the vehicle No. RJ12.UA.525 involved in the accident was insured by it but the driver thereof was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle; no accident occurred as claimed by the claimants with the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company and that the compensation claim was filed claiming a highly exaggerated amount.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal held that the driver of the Maruti Van drove the Maruti Van in a rash and negligent fashion and turned it suddenly on to the wrong side causing the accident. Yatin Joshi AW2 claimed to be an eye -witness and deposed that the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van driver was the cause of the accident. The respondents though represented did not rebut this evidence. The Tribunal relied upon the site inspection plan prepared during the investigation and relying on the principle of res -ipsa -loquitur, held that the driver of the Maruti Van drove the vehicle rashly and negligently caused the accident and the resultant death of Manohar Lal. The issue was thus decided in favour of the claimants and against the non -claimants.