UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal under Section 110(D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 corresponding to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Aet. 1988 is directed against the judgment dated 21.3.1997 and award dated 4.4.1997 passed by 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner -cum -Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 15/84. whereby and whereunder the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 64,640/ - in favour of the claimants - respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Hari Kishore Pandey (deceased) was employed as Writer Constable with Ranchi Police posted at Bundu police station at the time of accident. He was travelling in the jeep bearing registration No. BHN -6992 belonging to opposite party No. 1 respondent No. 5 on patrolling duty, which was insured with the appellant -opposite party No. 2, the United India Insurance Company Limited. The said jeep while moving on the National High -way No. 33, met with an accident with another vehicle (Station Wagon No. BUT 839) and the deceased received grievous injury because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of both the vehicles. Hari Kishore Pandey was removed to RMCH Ranchi from the place of accident but on the way he succumbed to his injury. The incident was reported to Bundu Police Station which registered as Bundu PS Case No. 90/83 under Sections 279/338/304A, IPC.

(3.) MR . Ram Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant -opposite party No. 2, submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence correctly and committed an error of law in assessing the compensation and also holding the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable with opposite party No. 1, respondent No. 5. He further submitted that the appellant is not of all liable for the accident and is not liable to pay the compensation amount as thejeep in question belonging to the opposite party No. 1 -respondent No. 5, which was requisitioned by the State Government for election duty and whenever vehicle is requisitioned by the Government then liability of the Insurance Company is ceased and it is the requisitioning authority or the Government, who is only liable. It was further pointed out that the premium, which took cover the passenger risk, was not paid by the insured, hence the passenger risk is not covered. He further pointed out that owner of Station wagon No. BHT 893 has not been made party hence claim case was bad for non -joinder of necessary party. He further pointed out that interest should not have been awarded in the case because the case has been dragged for long 13 years for no fault of the appellant but by the fault of the claimants and as such, claimants are not entitled for interest.