AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Ojha, J.—Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd., and Mr. Siddharth, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and have gone through the record including the impugned judgment and award dated 4.9.1996 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/12th Additional District Judge, Meerut, in Claim Petition No. 513 of 1993, Sharafat Ali and Anr. v. Ramesh and Anr.
By the impugned award a direction has been made for compensation of Rs. 91,200/- to be given to the respondent No. Sharafat Ali, father of the deceased child Sajid and the respondent No. 2, Smt. Mobina, mother of the deceased u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The fact in brief is that according to claimant respondent Nos. 1 and 2 their minor child Sajid aged about 13 years was present on Kithore-road on 28.7.1995 at 10.00 p.m. when a Matador No. DDA 9010, which was being driven rashly and negligently, crushed the boy. The owner of the vehicle is respondent No. 3 Ramesh. FIR was lodged against the Matador on the same day. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sajid was done and it was found that due to injury caused his death took place and his age was about 13 years.
A written statement was filed by the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company denying the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. After framing Issues the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 examined P.W. 1 Maskoor eye-witness of the occurrence and P.W. 2 Sharafat Ali, father of the deceased. No witness was examined by the appellant Insurance Company or the owner of the vehicle. After appreciating the evidence the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that that due to rash and negligent driving of the Matador No. DDA 9010 injury was caused to Sajid resulting into his instantaneous death. Statement of P.W. 1 Maskoor eyewitness of the occurrence was not controverted by statement of any witness, who would have been examined by the appellant or the owner of the vehicle. FIR and post-mortem examination report also confirmed the death having taken place on account of the injury caused by the Matador. Therefore, it is found that there is no illegality in the appreciation of evidence and the finding made by the Tribunal that due to rash and negligent driving of the Matador owned by the respondent No. 3, injury was caused and death of Sajid took place is affirmed.
Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was being driven by one Satyapal, who had fake driving license as per the report of the Licensing Authority at Agra. The learned Counsel for the appellant has cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, in which the Hon�ble Apex Court held that "it is, therefore, evident from the discussions made hereinabove that the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time".
In view of the above pronouncement of the Hon''ble the Supreme Court the appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, dismissal of the appeal will not come in the way of the insurer appellant for initiating proceeding for recovery of the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances as brought on record, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned award.
The appeal is totally devoid of merits, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.
As prayed, the amount of Rs. 12,500/- deposited in this Court by the appellant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned within one month from the date an application is filed by the appellant for the purpose so that it may be disbursed to the claimants.
The appellant has deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the Tribunal and it is admitted that out of this amount only Rs. 25,000/- has been given to the claimant respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The claimant respondents are entitled to withdraw the remaining amount so deposited by the appellant and also for recovery of the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal.
It is open to the appellant-Insurance Company to initiate proceedings for recovery of die amount u/s 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent No. 3, owner of the vehicle.