AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
This appeal from order has been filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haridwar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.72 of 2008 "Biram Singh & another Vs. Gopal Singh & others", by which the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.83,500/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred Only) in favour of the claimants. The learned Tribunal has further directed that the amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant nos.1 and 2 who are the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle.
The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the claimants/parents of the deceased Km. Deepa stating that on 21.04.2008 their daughter Km. Deepa along with other persons was returning in a tractor-trolley to her Village Kudi Netwal, Saidabad. At about 09:00 PM, when the tractor-trolley reached near Balawali Tiraha, a bus bearing Registration No. UHN 3111, which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the tractor-trolley as a result of which her daughter sustained fatal injuries. She was taken to the hospital but ultimately she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her.
Since the permit of the bus was not filed by the owner or the driver of the vehicle, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haridwar came to the conclusion that there was no permit for plying the bus and it was being plied against the terms and condition of the insurance policy.
The only case of the appellants before this Court is that they were having the temporary permit for one day but due to inadvertence this could not be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as evidence.
A copy of the permit has been produced before this Court, however, this Court declines to read the same as a piece of evidence for the reason that it is apparent from the fact that the route was inter-State route between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand and though the signature of the Transport Authority of the Uttarakhand are there in the so called "permit" being shown to this Court now at this stage apparently there is no counter signatures from another counterpart in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Moreover at this stage in any case, it cannot be read as evidence.
In view thereof, no interference is called for in this matter.
The appeal from order is hereby dismissed.