1. Does the "Comprehensive Policy of Insurance" exempts the Insurance Company from its liability of paying compensation to the victim of a vehicular accident who is traveling in a vehicle which is covered under such policy, at the time of accident, is but the only important point, raised in the instant appeal which seeks setting aside of Award dated 26th April, 2012, for short as impugned Award, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Samba, for short as Tribunal?

2. "No" is possibly the only answer for the reasons those would flow from the narration of events below.

BRIEFFACTS

3. On 30th March, 2009, a vehicular accident caused at Vijaypur Chakpura, claimed the life of one Venkata Subramanyam Bopana. The accident had allegedly been caused due to rash and negligent driving of one Deepak Kumar, driver of offending vehicle, TATA SUMO GRANDY, bearing registration No. CH04E 6276.

4. Respondents 1 and 2, being the legal heirs of deceased viz. wife and minor son, approached the Tribunal seeking compensation from the insurer-appellant for the life of deceased having gone astray due to said accident. Respondents claimed compensation to the rune of Rs. 2.50 Crores along with 12% interest per annum, from the appellant.

5. Appellant/insurer and respondent 2 and 3, in claim petition, appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections. Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties framed as many as eight issues for determination. The said issues are verbatim placed on record, thus:

1) Whether deceased Venkata Subramanyam Bopanna died as a result of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 30.03.2009 at 7.15 A.M. near Chakpura, Vijaypur caused by respondent No. 2 while driving Vijaypur caused by respondent No. 2 while driving vehicle No. CH04E/6276 in a rash and negligent manner? O.P.P.

2) Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR1

3) Whether the respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation as the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms and condi#31;tions of the insurance Policy and route perm it? OPR3.

4) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation under Motor Vehicle Act and if so, from whom and to what extent? OPP.

5) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the liability of respondent No. 1 is limited to compensation of Rs. 1 lakh? OPR1.

6) Whether the deceased does not come within the definition of the term 3rd party. If so, what is its effect? OPR1.

7) Whether the risk of the alleged deceased being employee or member of the Insured is not covered under the insurance policy and thus respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay the compensation? OPR1.

8) Relief."

6. Respondent No. 1 herein after being asked to lead evidence produced and examined Rajesh Kumar, Lovely Bhagat and also appeared as her own witness to prove her claim. Besides in the shape of documentary evidence, she placed reliance on Photostat copy of FIR, Insurance Policy, postmortem report and appointment letter dated 5th March, 2008, and Form No. 16 detailing out the salary and tax statement of deceased.

7. Appellant also examined S. K. Gupta and S. S. Jaral, while as respondent No. 3 in the claim petition, examined Ramesh Sharma.

8. The witnesses produced and examined by the respondent No. 1 herein, lend support to the respondents' case and their statements establish the factum of respondents 1 and 2 herein, to be the legal heirs of deceased and having been deprived of their only dependency. The witnesses have deposed that deceased's gross monthly salary was Rs. 2,08,333/- and Rs. 184879/- after requisite tax deduc#31;tions. The witnesses have also corroborated the stand of the respondent No. 1 vis-'-vis the rank and future prospects of deceased in the Company. One of the witnesses has deposed that he has witnessed the accident as he happened to be driving on a motorcycle on spot on the fateful day. He has deposed that of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document