NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. LAL KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/non-claimant No.3 Insurance Company has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act of 1988') assailing the validity of the judgment and award dtd. 22/1/2013 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh ('Tribunal') in MAC Case No.197/2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents No.1 to 6/claimants and awarded compensation of Rs.16,10,120.00 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. All the non-claimants were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

(2.) Facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this misc. appeal are that the claimants, respondents No.1 to 6, filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.43,60,000.00 on account of death of Sh. Gordhan Singh, the sole breadwinner of the claimants, in the accident, which took place on 5/10/2006. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia stated that in the intervening night of 05/6/10/2006, deceased Gordhar Singh while plying his motorcycle (RJ-09-SA-7130) was going from village Fachar to Nimbaheda. On the way, on Nimbaheda-Chittorgarh road, near Abhilasha Restaurant, Laxmipura, Rajendra Singh and Jairam Constable met him to whom he provided lift. While all the three boarded the motorcycle, near Laxmipura, the driver/non-claimant No.1 (Rajaram), while driving his Trailer (RJ-27-G-6279) rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, rider (Gordhan Singh) and pillion riders fell down and sustained injuries. Gordhan Singh received injuries on head, hands and feet and he was taken initially to Nimbaheda Hospital and thereafter he was referred to Government Hospital, Udaipur when during the course of treatment, he died on 12/10/2006. An FIR (FIR No.430/2006) of the incident was lodged at concerned police station, wherein after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the offending vehicle for offences under Ss. 279, 337 IPC and 304A of IPC.

(3.) After being served of the notices of the claim petition, the non-claimants No.1 and 2 filed their joint reply to the claim petition while refuting the claim laid by the claimants. It was stated that the vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.3, therefore, they could not have been held liable to pay the compensation.