1. The Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is directed against the award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi on 30th April, 2010, in claim petition titled "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Haji Mukhtiyar Ahmed and ors." (27/Claim).

2. It appears that one Gulzara Begum, while traveling in a Truck bearing Registration No. JKO2M-3664 was seriously injured, when the Truck met with an accident at Sula Bridge, Reasi. The accident is attributed to rash and negligent driving of its driver -owner Shri Piara Singh — respondent No. 6 herein

3. The award made by the Tribunal is primarily questioned on the ground that the deceased Gulzara Begum was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and that the appellant Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the dependents of Mst. Gulzara Begum, who breathed her last in a local hospital due to injuries sustained in the accident and to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle.

4. It is next urged that the compensation has been assessed unmindful of the settled legal position and is more than what ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is said to have committed error while assessing loss of dependency and unauthorizedly awarded compensation on account of future expenses. The Tribunal, it is pleaded, was not to award compensation on account of contortion as well as loss of love and affection.

5. I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, insists that in view of the admission in the claim petition on part of the respondents/claimants that the deceased at the time of accident was traveling in a goods vehicle, it was for the respondents/claimants to plead and prove how they not withstanding such admission, were entitled to recover compensation from the appellant. It is argued that the appellant was not under an obligation to plead that it was not liable to pay the compensation and that mere failure on part of the appellant to make a specific plea in this regard, would not entitle the respondents/claimants to claim and recover compensation from the appellant.

7. The ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the appellant was not liable to indemnify the owner is untenable and of no help to the appellant, for the simple reason that the appellant, in this regard, has not made a specific plea in its objections filed before the Tribunal nor has adduced any evidence to prove that it was not so liable. Whenever vehicular accident involving a vehicle insured with the insurance agency claims a life or results in injury to any person, the dependents of the deceased or the person injured, as the case may be, have a right to maintain the claim petition. The claimant(s) is/are not required to forsee the defence likely to be set up by the Insurance Company to escape liability and in advance plead in the claim petition that such defence was not available to the insurance company. In case, insurance company proposes to escape liability on any ground available to it, it is for the insurance company to specifically plead such ground and thereafter, prove whatever is pleaded. In case, the insurance company fails to specifically plead the defence available it, it cannot bank on inferences that it expects the Tribunal to draw from the averments made in the claim petition. In the present case, mere admission on part of the respondents/claimants that the deceased at the time of accident was traveling in a goods vehicle would not by itself help the appellant to wriggle out of its responsibility under the insurance contract. Since, the respondents/claimants notwithstanding their admission that the deceased was traveling in a goods vehicle have claimed compensation for the appellant - Insurance Company, it is to be presumed that the respondents/claimants plead that notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, they had a right to claim and the insurance company was under an obligation to pay compensatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document