ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. No one appears for the claimants-respondents 1st Set despite the fact that they have entered appearance and the name of the learned advocates of respondent nos. 1 and 2 are printed on the cause list.

3. The appellant in this case is an Insurance Company. Challenge in this appeal to the judgment and award dated 12.06.2015/ 12.06.2015 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal cum Additional District Judge Ist, Munger, (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in M.V. Claim case No. 15 of 2010 (Computer case No. 653 of 2013) whereby and whereunder the claim petition of the respondents 1st set has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 7,89,500/-along with 9% interest from 21.02.2012 till the date of the payment through a cheque or bank draft within thirty (30) days.

Brief facts of the case

4. Claimants in this case happen to be the parents of the deceased, Ritu Raj Sharma. The case of the claimants is that on 31.05.2009 the said Ritu Raj Sharma was returning Hasdiha on a motorcycle bearing No. BK-10H/0769 with one Sanjay Sharma. The motorcycle was dashed by a truck bearing no. WB-03B/7394 driven by the respondent no. 4 allegedly rashly and negligently. The truck driver dashed the motorcycle from the back side due to which both the riders were thrown and sustained grievous injuries and thereafter Ritu Raj Sharma died on the way to Bhagalpur. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Sanjay Sharma Poraiya Hat P.S. Case No. 81 of 2009 was instituted.

5. The age of the deceased was about 25 years and it has come in evidence that the deceased was employed in a private company namely CISC, Kolkata. He was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 7,500/-. The deceased had passed intermediate class and at the time of his death he was unmarried.

6. In order to prove their case the claimants-respondent 1st set examined themselves as AW-1 and AW-2 respectively. They also produced one witness namely Rahul Dev Sharma (AW-3). In support of their claim they produced the following documentary evidences:-

Exhibit ‘1’-Photocopy of the post mortem report of the deceased.

Exhibit ‘2’ – Certified copy of the First Information Report of Poraiya Hat Godda P.S. Case No. 13 of 2010.

Exhibit ‘3’- Certified copy of chargesheet no. 142 of 2019.

Exhibit ‘4’ – Photocopy of the owner book of the vehicle.

Exhibit ‘5’ – Photocopy of the license of the driver.

Exhibit ‘6’ – Photocopy of the insurance policy obtained by the truck owner in respect of WB-03B/7394 from the appellant.

Exhibit ‘7’- Photocopy of the voter identity card.

Exhibit ‘8’- Photocopy of the salary slip.

Exhibit ‘9’-The certificate issued by the Anchaladhikari, Sadar Munger.

7. The case of the claimants was contested by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement. The Insurance Company contented inter-alia that they are not liable to pay compensation as the driver of the vehicle did not possess any valid license to drive the vehicle as a paid driver. It was further contented that the owner of the vehicle had no valid route permit to ply the vehicle in the area where the alleged accident took place. And at the time of accident, the driver was under intoxication, therefore, for all these reasons the Insurance Company is not liable to pay.

8. The Insurance Company, however, did not bring any oral evidence. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Exhibit ‘A’ was provided which is said to be a report dated 12.08.2011 and 29.07.2011. The photocopy of the driving license of the driver which was produced by the claimants was exhibited as Exhibit ‘3’ at the instance of the Insurance Company (O.P.).

Issues framed by the Tribunal

9. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues which are being reproduced hereunder :-

^^izLrqrokn ds fuLrkj.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr okn fcUnqvksa dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k gS %&
1-D;k nkokd