BALU LAL Vs. RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant against the judgment and award dt. 24.8.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in civil Misc. Case No. 625/2004 by which the learned Judge maintained the claim up to interim award of Rs. 50,000.00 and dismissed the claim application filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the M.V. Act of 1988').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are like this, it is revealed from the claim petition that a claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act, was filed by the appellant to award compensation for the death of his wife Smt. Chanla Devi @ Chanda Devi, who died in motor vehicular accident occurred on 28.08.2001. The appellant stated in his application that at the time of accident, she was of 19 years and was earning Rs. 3,000.00 per month and due to untimely death in motor accident, he suffered monitory loss as well as suffered mental shock and agony. On these has is a claim of Rs. 4,65,500.00 was claimed.

(3.) Notices of claim petition were issued. Respondent Insurance Company only filed reply. In reply it denied the responsibility of causing any accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle and also denied the responsibility of paying compensation to the claimant. The Insurance Company also took defence pleas in reply that driver of the offending vehicle, was not having valid and effective licence at the time of accident, thus that was a breach of terms of policy and insurer cannot be made responsible for payment of compensation. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleading of the parties, framed relevant issues and after giving opportunity for proving issues to both the parities, concluded the matter by holding that the concerned vehicle No. R.J.06-C-6268 was involved in accident and Smt. Chanta @ Chanda Devi died out of use of that vehicle, therefore, held responsible for causing accident to its driver and held responsible for the compensation to the owner and Insurance Company of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal further under issue No. 3 held that as the appellant has received the compensation under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, awarded vide order dt. 15.01.2003 Rs. 50,000.00 therefore, the claim under Sec. 163-A of the M.V. Act, is not maintainable. Thus, vide judgment and award dt. 24.08.2007 dismissed the claim petition.