Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Rahul learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the insurer of vehicle, bearing registration no. U.P. 32 C.P.-6217. On 16.6.2010, the said vehicle dashed with a tree in which Brijesh Pandey, son of Tribhuvan Narain Pandey and Roshan Singh @ Nitin Singh, son of Pawan Singh, died on the spot and other two persons sitting in the vehicle suffered injuries. It is admitted that the accident was caused, in the efforts to save the Nilgai, who all of a sudden, came before the vehicle.
In the claim petition, the claimant set up a case that the vehicle was being driven by one Sri Roshan Singh, who also died on the spot. He submitted that the claim petition has also been filed by the dependents of the Roshan Singh, being claim petition no. 186 of 2011 at Sultanpur. In said claim petition, statements of Sunil Singh, son of Brijesh Singh, Amit Singh, son of Ashok Singh, Sanjay, son of Vikramaditya Sharma, who were sitting in the vehicle, were recorded and they admitted that the vehicle was being driven by Brijesh Pandey. The Tribunal while disposing of their claim petition on 28.3.2013 has accepted that the vehicle was being driven by Brijesh Pandey. The father of Brijesh Pandey also filed claim petition, who was the owner of the vehicle, in respect of damage caused to the vehicle. Such claim petition is Annexure-1 to the affidavit, wherein Brijesh Pandey has been stated as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has accepted the plea of the claimant that the vehicle was being driven by Roshan Singh and not by Brijesh Pandey and the accident has been caused on account of negligence of Roshan Singh, which is contrary to the finding recorded in the other claim petition. The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Act by the heirs of Brijesh Pandey. Since in the present case, Brijesh Pandey was driving the vehicle and the accident has been caused on account of his negligence, therefore, dependents of Brijesh Pandey are not entitled for any compensation under Section 166 of the Act. The submission is that the mother is the only claimant. The owner of the vehicle is the father. No case has been made out that the mother was the dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, she is not entitled for any compensation on this ground also.
The matter requires consideration.
Admit.
Respondent no. 1 is represented by Sri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate. Issue notice to respondent no. 2. The appellant may take steps to serve the respondent no. 2 by registered post.
Until further orders, the operation of the judgment and award dated 2.4.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 19, Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No. 587 of 2010 (Smt. Manju Pandey Vs. Tribhuwan Narain Pandey and another) shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposits half of the amount of compensation within four weeks. Out of the amount so deposited, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) on furnishing security in the form of other than cash or bank guarantee and the balance amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme in a nationalized bank, yielding maximum interest. Any amount already deposited shall be given adjustment.
Office is directed to remit back the statutory amount to the concerned Tribunal within four weeks.
Order Date :- 18.7.2014 OP