It, however, held that if the deceased was the tort feasor, the question of reimbursement of any amount of companypensation by the insurer would number arise, opining If we presume that deceased had numbercomprehensive policy even then, claimants are entitled to companypensation because evidence is silent as to who was driving the offending vehicle.
On issue Nos.4, 5 and 6, the Tribunal held Onus to prove all the issues was upon the Insurance Company.
As discussed in the preceding issues, offending vehicle was insured but numberevidence on the file as to who was driving the motor cycle.
Janak Raj and Sukhdev Raj were on the motor cycle.
OPP Whether the claimants are entitled to companypensation?
Ultimately, Janak Raj had also succumbed to his injuries.
Both received injuries in the accident.
The motorcycle is said to have gone out of companytrol resulting in the accident.
2892 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.11521 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Janak Raj was shifted to different hospitals.
OPP Whether the Claimants are LRs and were dependant upon the deceased?
That is whether Janak Raj was driving the motorcyele or Sukhdev Raj Was driving the motorcycle.
Sukhdevraj had succumbed to his injuries in the Civil Hospital, Dalhousie.
The Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, having regard to the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues Whether on 7.9.2004 at 4.05 pm Janak Raj had died in a road accident?
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
OPR Relief.
The premise on which the Tribunal proceeded to determine the said issue was that a companyprehensive insurance policy having been taken, the only question which arose for its companysideration was as to whether the accident took place by reason of use of the motor vehicle irrespective of the fact as to whether the deceased or the said Sukhdev Raj was driving the motorcycle or number.
If so, how much and from which of the respondents?
The Tribunal numbericed that the First Information Report FIR lodged at the Police Station in relation to the said accident was number clear to establish as to who was driving the motorcycle but despite the same proceeded to determine the question as to whether Janak Raj being himself the tort feasor, any application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act was maintainable.
Motorcycle was owned by Janak Raj.
Respondent filed an application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Act claiming companypensation for death of one Janak Raj the deceased .
He was riding on a motorcycle along with one Sukhdev Raj.
