Appeal from Order No. 64 of 2010. Case: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rakesh Singh and Ors.. Uttarakhand High Court

Case NumberAppeal from Order No. 64 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Rajni Supyal, Advocate and For Respondents: Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate
JudgesUmesh Chandra Dhyani, J.
IssueMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2(21), 2(22), 3, 75
Judgement DateJanuary 05, 2017
CourtUttarakhand High Court


Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.

  1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.11.2009, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Rudraprayag in MACT Case No. 17 of 2008 ' Rakesh Singh and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others'. There was delay of seven days' in filing the appeal, which has been condoned by this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2010.

  2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal are as follows:-

    The applicants are the residents of village Kanda (Daira), Patwari Circle Daira, District Rudraprayag. On 17.06.2008, their father (deceased Gopal Singh) was going from Ukhimath to his village Kanda in Jeep No. U.A. 7 J-4183, when this vehicle reached near the place Huddu Goan, in between Tala Barangali motor road, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver in which deceased Gopal Singh died on the spot. At the time of accident, deceased Gopal Singh was the retired Police Personnel from Madhya Pradesh Police of 62 years old and getting Rs. 6,000/- per month as pension. The F.I.R. of this accident was lodged at Patwari Circle Daira, District Rudraprayag. O.P. No. 1 is the Insurance Company of this vehicle and O.P. No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the claimant has filed the claim petition for the compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs from the opposite parties.

  3. Owner of the vehicle (O.P. No. 2 before the Tribunal) submitted his written statement and admitted all the facts of the claim petition. The owner of the vehicle also averred in his written statement that on the date of accident, the vehicle was fully insured for all the liabilities with Oriental Insurance Company (O.P. No. 1. before the Tribunal). It was further averred that the vehicle was being driven by the competent driver, having duly valid license. The accident occurred due to the technical fault in the vehicle. It was pleaded by the owner of the vehicle that the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners is with the Insurance Company.

  4. The Oriental Insurance Company (O.P. No. 1 before the Tribunal) also filed its written statement denying all the facts of the petition. It was averred that the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation and any claim petition filed thereof, is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners have no cause of action to file the claim petition. The petitioners did not file any document relating to the accident. F.I.R., Post mortem report, driving license, registration, permit of the vehicle, tax payment certificate, etc. were missing. According to Insurance Company, the petition was filed on the basis of concocted facts. The accident did not occur due to the technical fault, but due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver. According to the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle is only responsible to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

  5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

    "1. Whether, on 17.06.2008 at about 5:30 p.m. near the village Huddu Gaon, Patwari Circle Daira, District Rudraprayag, vehicle No. UA 07 J/4183 Jeep met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, in which, Gopal Singh was travelling and died?

  6. Whether, on the date of accident, the driver of vehicle No. UA 07 J/4183 Jeep has valid and effective driving license, and all other relevant papers of the vehicle were updated, and the said vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for whole liabilities. If yes, then its effect?

  7. Whether, the petitioners are entitled to get any amount of compensation? If so, then what amount and from whom?"

  8. P.W. 1 Rakesh son of deceased appeared before the Tribunal for the petitioners and also filed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT