The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay just compensation to the claimants under the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal arises out of Judgement/Award dated 17.05.2016, passed by District Judge - IX- cum - M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 305/2010 whereby and whereunder claim application filed by the claimants/plaintiffs has been allowed and defendant no. 2/united India Insurance Co. Limited has been directed to make payment of Rs.3,06,500/- (Rs. Three Lacs Six Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the plaintiffs alongwith interest payable @9% per annum from the date of filing till the date of its realisation, within a period of one month.

2. Claim application was preferred by plaintiffs under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act for grant of compensation of Rs.5,86,000/- due to death of their son – Tabrej Ansari alleging therein that on 26.06.2010, at about 9:30 p.m., deceased was travelling in a Tempo bearing registration no. JH-10R 5153. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the tempo in question fell down on the road and consequent thereto, Tabrej Ansari died on the spot. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Hamid Mian (father of the deceased), Jharia P.S. Case No. 199/2010, dated 26.06.2010, under Sections 279/337/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against said driver of the vehicle. Upon summon/notices, both the defendants appeared and filed their written statement.

3. The defendant no. 2/appellant – Insurance Company has taken the preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable, barred under the principles of Section 147 of the M.V. Act and the same is bad either in law or in fact and was fit to be dismissed. The Insurance Company further denied that the deceased was travelling in the said tempo in question or the driver of the said vehicle was driving the tempo in rash and negligent manner. Insurance Company further took the plea that the driver of the tempo was not impleaded as a party and as such the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of party. Insurance Company further denied that a person like deceased, who was of 19 years of age, can earn Rs.150/- daily and Rs.4,500/- per month. Insurance Company further alleged that the plaintiffs were not liable to get any compensation because deceased was not cleaner/Khalasi of the tempo or in any manner employed under defendant no. 1 and/or traveling in the same vehicle at the time of alleged accident and thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay at all any sum of money in terms of compensation. The defendant no. 2/appellant has further denied occupation and income of the deceased and has further prayed to dismiss claim petition.

4. The defendant no. 1 – owner of the temp also filed written statement denying allegations made by the plaintiffs. It has further been alleged that owner was having valid papers such as certificate of fitness, road permit, tax token, valid insurance policy on the date and time of alleged accident and driver of the said tempo had valid and effective driving license which was valid till 23.11.2010. It was further contended that there was no violation of any terms and conditions of insurance policy and as such the defendant cannot escape from his liabilities. The defendant no. 1 has also denied any monthly income of the deceased.

5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues.

(I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

(II) Is there any cause of action for the present suit?

(III) Whether deceased Tabrej Ansari died on 26.06.2010 at about 9:30 p.m. near Dukharni Mandirin a road accident within the jurisdiction of Jharia P.S., while, he was travelling in Tempo bearing registration no. JH 10R 5153 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tempo?

(IV) Whether Md. Yusuf, defendant no. 1, was the real owner of the aforesaid vehicle at the time of accident?

(V) Whether the driver of tempo had a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

(VI) Whether the tempo be