1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgement and award dated 01.03.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux) Sabarkantha in MACP No. 172 of 1991 whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 17,162/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation payable by respondent no. 2/1 to 2/5/6 to the original claimant after assessing 50% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The Tribunal has exonerated the original respondent no. 3-Insurance Company.
2. The original claimant had filed claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- in respect of the vehicular accident which occurred on 13.01.1991 when the appellant was waiting for a jeep on the road side. It is the case of the appellant that at that time, a tractor bearing registration no. GUZ 7790 driven by the original opponent no. 1 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant as a result of which he sustained injuries. The appellant therefore filed claim petition under the said circumstance. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr.
Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated the Insurance Company and ought not to have dismissed the claim of the appellant against the insurance company and that the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver, owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has passed the award in accordance with law after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore no interference is called for in the matter.
5. This court has heard the parties and perused the papers on record. The only contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is that the insurance company is exonerated. As regards this the Tribunal has observed that on the date of accident there was no contract between the insurance company and the heirs of the original opponent no. 2 and since the original opponent no. 2 was not alive on the date of accident, the contract between the insurance company and the opponent no. 2 did not substitute. The Tribunal on that basis had exonerated the insurance company from being liable. This court is in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted by the Tribunal. The insurance policy which was produced before the Tribunal is placed on record. The policy of the offending vehicle was for the period from 21.10.1990 to 20.10.1991 and the accident in the present case has occurred on 31.01.1991. However, the original opponent no. 2 had already expired on 06.11.1990. Further there is nothing on record to show that the heirs of the deceased opponent no. 2 were made party to the policy. Considering the statutory provisions and the settled law the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from any claim. Appeal is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top