IMPORTANT POINT
While deciding the appeal against final award court can look into correctness of order passed by Tribunal with respect to rejection of prayer to raise then defence under Section170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

M.K. Mudgal, J.—Challenging the validity and legality of the award dated10.10.2006 passed by MACT, Shivpuri in Claim case No.94 of 2006,the appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal after rejecting the permission sought by the appellant for defending the case on all grounds under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, has awarded a total sum of Rs.4,20,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Kashiram Jatav 30 years of Age who died in vehicle accident on 2.6.2005 and also held that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded. In this appeal, the appellant insurance company is referred to as non-applicant No.3, respondents No.1 to 6 as applicants/claimants and respondents No.7 and 8 as “non-applicants No.1 and 2.”

2. The admitted facts of the case are that on 2.6.2005 the date of accident, the offending truck bearing registration No.M.P.09-K.D/2735 was owned by the non-applicant No.2 Dinesh Kumar and it was insured with appellant/non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company.

3. The facts in brief of this case are that on the date of incident 2.6.2005 at 12.00 in the night the deceased Kashiram about 30 years of age met with an accident near AB Road Shivpuri with Truck bearing registration No. M.P.09-K.D/2735 driven by the non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently while Kashiram was going to the house of his relative situated at Thakurpura Shivpuri, owing to which, Kashiram suffered severe injuries in different parts of his body leading to his death. Hence, the legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition before the claims Tribunal for the compensation of Rs.25,95,000.

4. The non-applicants No.1 and 2 denying the averments made in the claim petition have submitted that no accident had occurred with the offending truck being driven by non applicant No.1 and owned by non-applicant No.2 and even if it is found that the accident had occurred with the alleged vehicle, the driver/non-applicant No.1 was having valid driving licence, hence, the respondents cannot be held responsible for payment of any compensation to the claimants. Hence, the claim petition filed by the claimants deserves to be dismissed. Further if any compensation is awarded by the claims Tribunal, the same is to be paid by the non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company.

5. Similarly, non-applicant No.3 denying the allegations made in the claim petition has submitted that in the instant case, the driver was not possessing valid driving licence. Moreover, the accident was caused by the unknown vehicle, hence, the applicants have no locus standi to file the claim petition against the alleged vehicle truck No.MP09-KD/2735. Further, the claim made by the applicants for monetary loss caused to them owing to the death of deceased Kashiram was also denied being disproportionate. Even it has been submitted that the non-applicants No.1 and 2 are not co-operating with the insurance company which reflects that they are hands in glove with the applicants. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and consequently, the claim petition filed by the claimants deserves to be rejected.

6. The case was contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal after assessing income of the deceased at Rs.3,000 per month and applying the multiplier of 17 and holding that he was spending 1/3rd on himself as personal expenses by impugned award partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants as stated supra and awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,000, the breakup of which is as follows:

Rs. 4,08,000 Towards loss of dependency.

Rs. 5,000. Towards loss of consortium;

Rs.3,000 Towards funeral;

Rs. 4,000 Towards loss of Estate.

7. In this appeal, the appellant insurance company has mainly challenged the award on the ground of involvement of the Truck bearing registration No.MP09-KD/2735 in the alleged accident.