He got the said vehicle insured with the appellant companypany the policy being valid for the period 9.9.1999 and 8.9.2000.
1 and 7 On the basis of the discussions made above, it follows that the claimants application is maintainable and the applicants are entitled to receive companypensation from the O.P. No.1 as indicated above.
1 and 7 it was opined Issue Nos.
On the other hand, the circumstances speak that it was the deceased himself who was driving the motor vehicle in uncontrollable speed and in rash and negligent manner which cause accident as a result of which he and the pillion rider fell down and deceased died.
A First Information Report was also lodged.
Respondents herein filed a claim petition.
The accident allegedly took place as a stray dog came in front of the vehicle.
That so far the negligence of the driver of the Motor cycle is companycerned the claimants must establish affirmatively and unless it is proved the Claim Tribunal cannot pass any order of companypensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
The Tribunal did number enter into the question involved herein.
On 8th September, 2000 Tasu Mukhi, son of the insured, while driving the motor cycle met with an accident and died.
On issue Nos.
That the act suggests that the deceased number being a third party himself caused the accident and out of such act the loss allegedly occurred to him is number supposed to be a person companying within the scope, ambit and provisions of either section 165 1 of section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
During the motor vehicle accident and the policy also speaks that in the case of rash and negligent driving the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner.
Here in this case the driver of the vehicle is admittedly number a third party and as such the Tribunal has numberjurisdiction to pass any order under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Appellant herein raised a specific companytention that keeping in view the relationship between the deceased and the owner of the motor vehicle i.e. father and son, he was number a third party, stating That section 165 M.V. Act clearly postulates that the insurer is liable to indemnify the risk of the Third party.
Evidently, therefore, numberdecision was rendered on the said issue.
Amongst them, first respondent, who is the owner of the insured vehicle, was the applicant.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short the Act from a judgment and award dated 26th March, 2004 passed by the District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal at Seraikella was dismissed.
That it is further submitted that the claimants had failed to plead in their claim petition about the negligence which resulted the accident.
The admitted fact of the mater is as under First respondent was owner of a motor cycle.
