UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. LAXMI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company as against the award passed by the learned MACT dated 4.7.2013 holding the Vehicle Maruti Van bearing No. RJ36UA 0384 involved in the accident with motor cycle No. RJ 6SM 790. In the said accident Gajmal expired. The Insurance Company submits that the Maruti Van cannot be said to be involved in the said accident and there appears to be a collusion between the owner and the claimants because in the F.I.R. which was lodged, it was stated that there was an unknown vehicle which had caused the accident.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that merely because an admission of owner in a notice sent to him under Sections 133 and 134 of MV Act, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was involved. Further learned Counsel submits that the claimant was also required to prove the negligence on part of the offending vehicle for getting a claim of award and as the claimant could not prove that firstly the vehicle was involved and secondly that vehicle, if involved, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, so as to cause accident, resulting in death of the deceased. The learned MACT could not have passed the award granting compensation to the claim. Learned Counsel submits that apart from the claimant Laxmi, no one else was examined before the MACT and Laxmi in her cross-examination states that she had not seen the accident having occurred. The other persons who was lying the motor cycle namely Kalu was not produced in evidence, who had lodged the FIR. Thus, there is a doubt with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in the concerned accident. It is further submitted that Kalu had appeared in the case registered against the driver of Maruti Van by the police, and before the concerned Court, he has feigned ignorance with regard to the number of vehicle and make of the vehicle and who was driving. Thus, it is submitted that there is doubt of the vehicle being involved in the concerned accident.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the owner has filed the reply to the claim petition and has admitted of the vehicle being involved in the accident. In reply to the notice under Section 134 of MV Act, he has admitted of the vehicle being involved in the accident and the investigation conducted by the concerned investigating authority also found the vehicle to be involved in the accident and lodged the charge-sheet against the driver, for which, the trial was conducted against the concerned driver of the Maruti Van. Thus, there is a sufficient evidence of involvement of the Maruti Van. Learned Counsel has also relied on AIR 2011 Supreme Court 671 in Saroj & Ors. Vs. Het Lal & Ors., to submit that admission in pleading of his involvement of vehicle by the owner would be sufficient for the purpose of examining the liability.