JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2006 but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Insurance Company.

2. Previously vide order dated 18.07.2024 in FAO No.1682 of 2007, this Court had already issued directions to the Insurance Companies that in the event, any of their empanelled counsel fails to appear, the Court would request the counsel empanelled with the Insurance Companies, who is present in the Court to assist in the matters. Further, the concerned Insurance Companies were directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to the counsel engaged by this Court for assisting in the matters.

3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has handed over copy of the paper-book alongwith relevant record to the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

5. In view of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO No.1682 of 2007, the Insurance Company is directed to disburse the current scheduled fees to Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, the counsel engaged by this Court in the present case.

FAO-5522-2024

6. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 21.09.2024 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (later on converted into Section 163-A), whereby the claim petition filed before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhajjar (for short 'the Tribunal') was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

7. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.09.2001, the deceased (Brijesh Kumar) along with conductor Lakshman started their journey as a driver of the truck bearing registration No. HR-55-40963 from Bahadurgarh (Jhajjar) to Calcutta and when they reached near village Taranori on G.T. Road, Police Station Bagoder, District Girdih on 09.09.2001, the front tyre of the tuck got burst. As a result of the same, the truck turned turtle and Brijesh Kumar stuck under it. He succumbed to his injuries. FIR No. 164/2001 dated 10.09.2001 was registered in Police Station Bagoder, District Girdih, Jharkand.

8. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of compensation.

9. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1) Whether Brijesh Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident as caused by the truck bearing registration No. HR-55-4096 owned by respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPP

2) If issue no. 1 is proved as affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) Whether this petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4) Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition? OPR

5) Whether the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPR

6) Whether this Tribunal have no jurisdiction to try and decide this petition? OPR

7) Whether the deceased driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident? OPR-2

8) Relief”

10. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence the claimants/appellants filed the present appeal for grant of compensation.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

11. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends as under:-

i) That the claim petition is dismissed only on the ground that the income of Birjesh Kumar (since deceased) was more than Rs.40,000/-, which is more than prescribed in the schedule.

ii) That Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is now substituted by Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f 01.04.2022) and compensation should be granted as per the substituted statutory provision i.e. Section 164 of the Act.

iii) That the present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO No. 4301 of 2006, titled as Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others, wherein the cla