IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer is liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act even if the vehicle's ownership has been transferred, provided it was insured at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.) :

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Claimants against the judgment and award dated 10.9.2008 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Fast Track Court, Cooch Behar in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 66 of 2003, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The facts as stated by the claimants:-

“On 21.06.2002, when the victim was returning to his house from Tufanganj on his bi-cycle through Salbari P.W.D. road, at that time, at about 8.30 P.M. there was an accident and a motor vehicle knocked down the victim from behind and the vehicle in question fled away. As a result the victim sustained grave multiple injuries in his person and was admitted at S.D. Hospital, Tufanganj where he died. The said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said offending vehicle. The victim was an educated boy having passed 12 examination in 1990. He was 34 years old, having good health and he was the only earning member of his family.

The claimants have prayed for an award of compensation of Rs. 4,56,192/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Six Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two) only. The offending vehicle was No. WB-63/2268 Truck. The deceased used to earn Rs. 3168/- per month before his death.”

3. The owner of the offending vehicle is Deownath Choudhury, S/O. Lalji Choudhury, P.O. Telipara, P.S. Kumargram, Dist – Jalpaiguri and the Insurer of the vehicle is The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Cooch Behar Branch.

4. The instant claim case was contested by Respondent No.1/Owner of the offending vehicle by filing W.S. As per O.P. No.1 there is no cause of action for the petitioners which is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties. So, the petition is not maintainable in law and fact also barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquisance. So, they prayed for dismissal of the claim case.

5. The Respondent No. 2/National Insurance Company Ltd. has contested the claim petition by filing separate written objection. According to the Insurance Company, the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

6. The Claimants examined four witnesses and proved relevant documents, which were marked Exhibit 1 and 2 series.

7. The Opposite parties did not examine any witness.

8. The tribunal finally held as follows :-

9. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred on the following ground :-

That the tribunal was wrong in dismissing the claim of the claimants.

10. From the materials including the evidence on record, the following is evident :-

i) The tribunal refused to believe that the offending vehicle No. A.S.C. 2836 of T.D.V. truck of 1978 was later transferred to West Bengal and renumbered as W.B. 63/2298, as no supporting documents were produced.

ii) Ext. 2, the Charge Sheet in this case has been filed under Section 279/304(A) IPC.

The vehicle (offending) as shown in the charge sheet is WB-63/2268 with valid Insurance Certificate.

iii) By the seizure list (Ext 4) the said offending vehicle along with its document were seized.

iv) The Insurance policy in this case is related to vehicle no. ASG 2836, also a Truck.

v) It is the case of the Respondent No.1/owner in his Written Statement that:-

“The statements made in para 17 of the claim petition is admitted and answering Respondent No.1 insured the vehicle No. ASG-2836 (T) WB-63/2268 (Truck) with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No. 200701/2001/67/00618