AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard.
The appellant Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli, in M.A.C.P. No.4/2008, whereby the compensation has been granted of Rs.3,20,000/-, including ‘No Fault Liability’ with interest at 7.5% per annum.
It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that deceased was 42 years of age and working as a Carpenter and his monthly income was of Rs.6000/- per month. According to the claimants, on the fateful day of the accident, when the deceased was proceeding from Gadchiroli to Muska by vehicle bearing No.MH 31/H 1027, the driver of the vehicle lost control and vehicle dashed to a tree and in the said accident, due to the negligence of the driver, the accident occurred. The deceased succumbed to the multiple injuries on the vital part of the body and, therefore, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming thereby the compensation of Rs.13,13,000/-.
It is seen from the record that before the Claim Tribunal, the Insurance Company was made a party as the respondent No.2 and notice of the said petition was duly served on the Insurance Company. In spite of service of notice, the Insurance Company failed to appear before the Court and, therefore, the matter was proceeded ex parte against the Insurance Company vide order dated 18.07.2008. It is seen from the record that no steps were taken during the pendency of the claim petition before the Claim Tribunal to set aside the ex parte order and get permission to contest the proceeding.
In light of the above said factual position, the learned Tribunal, by appreciating the evidence placed on record and by applying proper multiplier, has awarded compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- to the claimants. In the present appeal, the only ground raised by the appellant- Insurance Company that the deceased being an occupant of the vehicle was not entitled to the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the indulgence of this Court is sought in the matter.
It is a well settled position of law that it is for the Insurance Company to prove that there is a breach of Insurance Policy and said breach is so fundamental in nature and brings the contract to an end. However, in the present case, admittedly, the Insurance Company did not appear before the Tribunal, nor any evidence of any kind was led before the Tribunal.
In the circumstances, in absence of any evidence, the ground raised in the present appeal cannot be considered. For the aforesaid reason, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference at the instance of appellant. Hence, the First Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.