JUDGMENT :

1. This is a claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ th Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur vide judgment and award dated 26.03.2002 passed in MACP No. 38 of 1999.

2. The claim petition was instituted by the deceased's widow, Smt. Vidyawati with a case that on 31.12.1998 at about 4:30 in the evening hours, Ram Krishna Kushwaha was proceeding on a bicycle from Kanari Bankey after teaching there to the school in Village Thingri, within the local limits of Police Station Alhaganj, District Shahjahanpur. He was a teacher in the primary school at Village Thingri, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur. He was proceeding on the left hand side of the road. At the fateful moment, a DCM Truck, bearing registration No. DBL-9399, green in colour, approached from the Jalalabad side. It was driven by its driver, Dhain Singh (for short, 'the driver') at a high speed and negligently. The driver proceeded without sounding a horn and struck Ram Krishna’s bicycle, crushing it under its wheels. Ram Krishna was thrown off and fell to the ground, sustaining grievous injuries. He died on the spot.

3. At the time of his demise, Ram Krishna Singh was aged 55 years. His employment as a teacher with the primary school provided him a monthly income of Rs. 6500/-. His exertions in the fields would yield a further income of Rs. 4000/-, making it a sum of Rs.10,500/-per month. The deceased's dependents are his widow, Vidyawati, aged 52 years and two sons, Haripal, aged 29 years and Sripal, aged 27 years. The registered owner of the offending vehicle is one Raj Singh son of Amar Singh, a resident of Shergarhi, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Meerut (for short, 'the owner'). The offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, District Shahjahanpur, which shall hereinafter be called 'the Insurers'. The claim petition was instituted, seeking a total compensation in the sum of Rs.19,50,000/-.

4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the Insurers generally denying the allegations in the claim petition. It was averred that no cause of action arose to the claimants to institute the present petition, which is not signed and verified in accordance with law. The petition was barred, according to the Insurers, by Section 64 of the Insurance Act, 1938. It was also pleaded that all necessary parties have not been impleaded, rendering the petition bad for non-joinder. The deceased was not employed and had no source of income. The offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, that led to the victim’s death nor did the accident result in injuries to him. The deceased’s bicycle collided with some unknown vehicle on account of his rashness and negligence and the offending vehicle has been involved deliberately after ascertaining its number in order to institute the present claim petition.

5. On the date of the accident, the offending vehicle did not have a valid Insurance Policy. Upon verification of the Insurance Policy, it has not been found in order and the compensation demanded is beyond the worth of the policy. The compensation is much on the higher side. In order to prove the accident, documentary evidence, such as copies of the First Information Report, Autopsy Report, Release Order of the vehicle and other documents relating to the offending vehicle have not been filed. It is also the Insurers' case that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. The offending vehicle did not have a fitness certificate or a route permit, where it was operating. The owner and the driver have committed violation of the policy, entitling the Insurers to relief from their liability. There is a collusion between the owner and the claimant, disentitling the claimant to relief.

6. A separate written