KANHAIYA LAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cross-appeals are filed by claimants and insurance company to challenge judgment and award dated 24th of September, 2015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). In the appeal filed by the claimants, precisely, they have questioned the impugned award to the extent to its finding on Issue No.3. As per the version of the claimants, amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Per contra, the appeal preferred by the insurer too is confined to finding on Issue No.3 inasmuch as it has challenged the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal. As per the perception of the insurer, the amount of compensation quantified and awarded by learned Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.

(2.) Necessary relevant facts for disposal of the appeals are that claimants are parents, wife, daughter and sister of deceased Naresh, who died on the spot instantaneously alongwith his companion Aditya Kumar in a road accident on 10th of November, 2007 while riding on motor cycle on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Tanker bearing registration No. RJ-09-GA0851 by its driver, which dashed against the motorcycle of deceased in its back. An FIR of the accident was lodged at Police Station Nimbaheda bearing No.443/2007 and after investigation chargesheet against driver of the tanker for offence under Section 297, 304A IPC and Section 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed. In the claim petition, filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), the claimants quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.89,60,000 under different heads including non-conventional damages impleading owner, driver and insurer of the tanker as non-applicants. Another claim petition arising out of the same accident, in connection with other deceased Aditya Kumar, was filed by his near and dear ones, and the claim petition of the present claimants was clubbed therewith. After issuance of summons, the claim petitions were contested by the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle by filing their written statements. In reply, the insurer though admitted that the vehicle was insured but taken the stand that at the time of accident the driver of tanker was not having valid driving licence and permit to ply the vehicle as such there was violation of the terms of insurance policy, and therefore, it is a clear case of its exoneration from any sort of liability. The owner of tanker in his formal reply refuted the averments of claim petitions and denied liability to pay compensation as the vehicle was insured with the insurance company.

(3.) The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of contesting parties, settled issues for determination. For substantiating their claims, on behalf of claimants, in all, four witnesses appeared and were examined. Besides ocular evidence, claimants exhibited 26 documents. However, no evidence was produced in defence by the insurer and other non-claimants.