IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA ON THE 22^nd OF APRIL, 2024 MISC. APPEAL No. 417 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

1. ^{GANGABAI Wd/O UNKARLALJI, AGED ABOUT 45} YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER

2. LAKHAN S/O UNKARLALJI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 3. MAHESH S/O UNKARLALJI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 4. JITENDRA S/O UNKARLALJI, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, (MINOR) THROUGH GUARDIAN GANGABAI Wd/O UNKARLALJI ALL R/O – GRAM NAMLI, PRESENT ADDRESS: LOHARI, TEHSIL JAORA, DISTRICT RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI KUSHAGRA JAIN -ADVOCATE)

AND SHYAMLAL S/O AMRUJI BHEEL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O GRAM

1.

BANJALI, P.S. RATLAM, TEH. AND DISTT.

RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

SIRAJ ALI S/O SOKAT ALI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OWNER R/O GRAM BANDHAWAR, TEHSIL DHAR (M.P.)

2.

PRESENT ADDRESS: JOJRON KHERA, TEHSIL GANGDHAR, DISTRICT CHITTORGARH (RAJASTHANA0 (RAJASTHAN)

SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE: E8, E.I.P. RALCO

3.

INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

...RESPONDENTS (SHRI ARUN GUPTA – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3/INSURANCE COMPANY)

(NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2, DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.

1. Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as ‘MV Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 17.11.2017 passed by the 2^nd Addl. Member, MACT, Jaora, District Ratlam in Claim Case No.20/2015, whereby the claim case filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. The relevant and necessary facts of the case are that on 17.12.2014 at about 8.30 p.m. offending vehicle bearing Registration No.RJ09-GA-8884 was being driven by the respondent No.1 and he has rashly and negligently parked his vehicle in the middle of the road without any parking indicator in a dangerous condition. Deceased Unkarlal was driving the truck bearing Registration No.MP09-GE-7376 and due to the negligence act of respondent No.1, his vehicle was dashed with the offending vehicle, due to which Unkarlal sustained fatal injuries and died during the treatment. FIR has been lodged at P.S. Namli. Accordingly offence under Section 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC has been registered against the respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the said vehicle and vehicle was insured with respondent No.3.

3. Appellants/claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming the compensation of Rs.48 Lakhs on account of death of Unkarlal, who is the husband of appellant No.1 Ganga Bai and father of other appellants. Appellants were dependent upon the deceased and they have been deprived from earning of the deceased. Deceased was driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and getting 60 Rupees allowance per day.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 did not file any written statement before the below Tribunal. Respondent No.3/insurance company denied all the averments made in the claim petition by submitting that no accident has been occurred due to the negligence of the offending vehicle. FIR is belated. All the necessary parties are not included in the instant case. At the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven without obtaining any fitness and permit. Therefore, due to the breach of the insurance policy, insurance company is not liable for any compensation.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the below Tribunal has framed the issues and recorded the evidence and after appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the findings given by the below Tribunal, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the below Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the fact that the vehicle w