The main legal point established is the requirement to prove rashness and negligence in claims under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in determining negligence.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the claimants, challenging the award dated 29th day of August, 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Gumla in M.A.C. Case No. 48 of 2010, whereby the claim application of the claimants was dismissed, holding that the claimants have failed to establish that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.

2. On 20.05.2008, the informant along with his deceased father Ranjeet Nagesia and other villagers had gone to attend marriage ceremony and when they were returning home by a Savari Vehicle No. JH 07B 3393 while reaching near the Amberadih, P.S. Palkot, then due to rash and negligent driving, the offending vehicle dashed with a Mango tree and several passengers were injured. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Ajay Nagesia, a case under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the driver of Savari Vehicle No. JH 07B 3393.

3. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 50 years and was a cultivator, having a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-per month. The deceased had left behind his wife and five children, who were dependent upon the deceased for which the claimants claimed compensation.

4. Opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement/show cause. The Insurance Company admitted the factum of validity of insurance. It was also the case of the opposite parties – owner and driver of the vehicle, that the vehicle was being driven by the driver, who had a valid driving licence on the date of accident. The Insurance Company, formally opposed the claim application and has also prayed that the insurance policy should be brought on record in support of the claim and the document of validity of the driving licence be produced. They also had taken a ground that the tax token, fitness certificate, route permit and registration document should also be brought on record.

5. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation?

2. Whether the claimants are legal heirs of the deceased?

3. Whether the owner of the vehicle possesses valid Route Permit to ply the vehicle?

4. Are the owner and driver violated the terms and condition of the policy?

5. Whether the Insurer is liable for payment of Award?

6. Whether the driver and owner are jointly or severally liable for payment of Award?

7. Whether the claim petition, as framed, is maintainable in the eyes of law and if maintainable, whether the claimants are entitled for any relief or reliefs?

6. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants, who are wife of the deceased, son of the deceased and an occupant of the vehicle. Claimants exhibited the following documents:-

7. Opposite Parties, i.e., owner and driver of the vehicle produced the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the insurance policy. The Tribunal clubbed all the aforesaid seven issues and heard the arguments of the parties. After discussing the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal held that there was no road permit of the vehicle as the owner and driver of the vehicle failed to produce the same. Issue No.2 was in respect of heirship of the deceased. The Tribunal held that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal further held that though the vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident, yet there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as there was no valid permit. Tribunal further held that though there was breach, yet Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation and realize the same from the owner of the vehicle. Tribuna