This appeal by the claimants arises out of the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu on File No. 560/Claim dated 24-09-1996.

The appellants herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation in respect of the death of the deceased in a vehicular accident, on 11-03-1986. It is alleged that the accident occurred due to reckless and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. 6827-JKB. The deceased, while walking on the road towards Batmalu to attend his office, was struck by the offending vehicle driven recklessly and negligently by his driver in reversing the vehicle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and lost his breath in the hospital on the same day. The driver and the owner remained absent before the Tribunal and were stood exparte. The claim petition, however, was contested only by the Insurance Company, which refuted its liability on the ground that the vehicle was not insured with the Company on the date of accident.

The Tribunal, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, awarded an amount of Rs. 1,15,500/- as compensation to the claimants, to be satisfied by respondents-1 and 2 (driver and owner of the vehicle), in the claim jointly and severly. It was further held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as the vehicle has not been found to be insured with the Company on the date of accident. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24-09-1996 only to the extent that instead of Insurance Company fastened with liability, the award has been directed to be satisfied by respondents-1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle, claimants impugned its correctness before this Court in appeal.

The only contention raised by Mr. K.L. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is that the Tribunal has mis-appreciated the evidence, much less ignored the material documents, viz., seizure memo and the FIR, showing the proof of the Insurance Policy vide which the offending truck was insured on the date of accident and wrongly fastened the liability to satisfy the award on the driver and the owner of the vehicle instead of the United India Insurance Company. Mr. Bhat further submitted that the Tribunal has also not taken note of the fact that while granting interim relief of Rs. 15,000/-, the Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the interim award vide its order dated 13.06.1987.

It is significant to point out that while granting interim award at an initial stage, the Tribunal does not look into the defences available to the Insurance Company, which are required to be determined on evidence in the main claim petition. What is required to be seen at the initial stage of the interim award is the death of the deceased to have taken place in a vehicular accident. No roving enquiry is required to be conducted while granting interim award but only on the basis of prima facie evidence available on record.

Mr. K.L. Bhat, learned appellants counsel, however, did not dispute that during the currency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, he had made an application seeking a direction to the Insurance Company to produce the Policy in respect of the offending vehicle. The application, however, did not merit acceptance with the Tribunal on the ground that in support of specific denial in the demurrer to the claim petition, filed by the insurance Company to the effect that offending vehicle was not insured, at the time of accident, with the Insurance Company. Mr. G.D. Bhargava made a statement in refuting the contention of the claimants that on verification of the record of the offending vehicle, as per Policy indicated in the FIR, it was found that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with the Company on the relevant date. No attempt seems to have been made by the claimants to bring evidence on record to show that the vehicle was insured with the Company on the date of accident. Even Investigati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document