BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 6. 2. 1995 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mudwara in Claim Case No. 28 of 1988.

( 2 ) CLAIMANTS are widow of the deceased and his parents. On 19. 7. 1988, deceased (Anil Pandey) was going to his village bichha from Katni by Luna. He was moving on the left side of the road but driver of bus No. UGH 930 came from opposite side driving the bus rashly and negligently and dashed against the deceased, causing injuries as a result of which he died at the site of accident after some time. Deceased was a young man of 22 years. He was a bidi contractor earning Rs. 900 per month. From agriculture he was earning about rs. 40,000/rs. 50,000 annually since his family possessed 66 acres of land. Compensation of Rs. 27,44,900 has been claimed. The owner and driver of the vehicle have stated that the bus was not being driven rashly and negligently and allegation to this effect was untrue and manufactured. Accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Luna by the deceased. Claim for compensation is exaggerated. Deceased did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the liability for payment of compensation is not theirs and in case any liability is established, the same be made payable by the insurance company. Defence of the insurance company is that the deceased was driving the vehicle carelessly. His mental state was not normal. He did not possess driving licence and the accident took place due to his carelessness for which he himself is responsible. The deceased was dependent on the claimants. He did not have independent source of income. He was not earning Rs. 900 per month from bidi trade nor anything out of agriculture. Since he did not possess driving licence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

( 3 ) AFTER trial of the case, the Tribunal found that accident dated 19. 7. 1988 was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. UGH 930. Due to this accident, deceased, aged 22 years died. With respect to income of the deceased, it is found that he used to contribute to the family Rs. 750 per month. Damage to Luna has not been established. Ultimately, compensation of rs. 1,40,000 has been awarded carrying interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. It is not proved that deceased did not have driving licence. Claimants are not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal in this court, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 (parents)preferred application LA. No. 5756 of 1997 dated 22. 8. 96 seeking deletion of the name of claimant No. 1 (Pramila, widow of the deceased) from the array of appellants on the ground that she had contracted second marriage with Shyam Sunder mishra of village Devsari (Jabalpur), therefore, she was not entitled to compensation. By order dated 4. 11. 1996, District Judge, jabalpur was directed to conduct an enquiry and report whether appellant No. 1 pramila had really entered into second marriage or not, as alleged by parents of the deceased. Report in this regard has been filed. It is dated 9. 2. 2001 on the record of the case. It is reported that Pramila has entered into second marriage with shyam Sunder Mishra after death of her husband Anil Pandey (deceased ). However, the report does not mention on which date the marriage was so contracted. Although pramila has denied the second marriage, however, the report says otherwise.

( 5 ) ASSUMING that second marriage of pramila has taken place, as reported, but date of taking place of the marriage has not been reported. But it could not have taken place on 16. 1. 1995 as stated in the application by the parents of the deceased, since had that been so, this fact should have been stated before the Claims Tribunal which decided the claim on 6. 2. 95. Further, this application should have been filed along with the appeal on 19. 6. 1995. The appeal has b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document