A party plying a motor vehicle in violation of the mandatory insurance requirements under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot claim compensation for damages to that vehicle, as they cannot take advantage of their own unlawful act.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the award dated 17.10.2011 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby, claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant for seeking compensation on the ground of damage to vehicle, was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.1.2010 claimant along with his brother-in-law Dalbir Singh (Sala) and his (Dalbir Singh) wife Smt. Harjinder Kaur had gone to village Barsat, District Karnal for taking some medicine in Esteem Car No. HR-41B- 4715 of the claimant. After taking medicine they were returning back to their home at Kurukshetra in the said Esteem Car No. HR-41B-4715 which was being driven by claimant Surjeet Singh at normal speed on correct side of the road by observing traffic rules. At about 9.00 a.m. they reached near under construction bridge on G.T. Road just before village Kutail turn and at that time there was deep mist in the Weather and due to which many vehicles were stopped there. Therefore, Surjeet Singh stopped his car. Behind the car of Surjeet Singh one Tavera vehicle No. PB-08AT-5948 had also stopped. In the meanwhile, the offending truck No. HR-55F-6867 came from the back side being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and straightly struck against the Tavera vehicle and then in turn the Tavera vehicle struck against the Esteem Car of Surjeet Singh from behind, as a result of which, Dalbir Singh and Harjinder Kaur sustained multiple, serious and grievous injuries. Thereafter, respondent No.1 succeeded in fleeing away from the place of accident. After the accident the claimant and other injured were shifted to Aparna Hospital from the place of accident. FIR No. 23 dated 24.1.2010 under section 279, 337 IPC was registered in P.S. Madhuban, District Karnal against the respondent No.1. The Esteem car of claimant Surjeet Singh was badly damaged in the said accident and accordingly, compensation of Rs. 1.5 lac was prayed for.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle by respondent no.1 and whether the Maruti Esteem LX MP1 Car No.HR41-B-4715 was damaged in the accident, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and respondent No.5 is not liable to pay any compensation? OPR-5

4. Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contends that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition only on the ground that the appellants/claimants have failed to prove that the vehicle in which the appellant-claimant was travelling, was insured. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award dated 16.07.2008