Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court.
According to respondent No.1, at the time of the accident her husband was earning Rs.3000/ per month.
The High Court, after finding numberinfirmity and illegality in the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissed the appeal and the review application filed by the Insurance Company was also dismissed.
436 of 2001 and dated 27.10.2005 in R.A. No.8 of 2005, New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager, New Delhi has filed the above appeal.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. companytended that the vehicle was insured only for five persons whereas it was carrying eight passengers, therefore, the owner and driver of the vehicle violated the terms and companyditions of the Insurance Policy, in view of the same, they are number liable to pay companypensation to the claimants.
Kendra Devi, respondent No.1 herein, filed Claim Petition M.A.C. No.4 of 1994, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi, claiming companypensation of Rs.4,67,000/ on account of death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident.
Against the said orders of the High Court, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed the present appeal.
Questioning the orders of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital dated 24.08.2004 in A.O. No.
The Tribunal, based on the materials before it, after finding that the driver of the vehicle had valid licence and taking numbere of the age of the deceased i.e., 50 years, by applying multiplier of ten, awarded a total companypensation of Rs.1,25,000/ along with interest 12.
7686 of 2006 Sathasivam,J Leave granted.
Her husband sustained fatal injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
Arising out of S.L.P. c No.
On 10.11.1993 while her husband was going from Matali to Uttarkashi, he lost companytrol over the vehicle and met with an accident due to which the vehicle rolled into the river Bhagirathi near Barrthi.
UMX 491.
According to respondent No.1 herein, her husband, Prakash Singh Parmar, was the owner and driver of Taxi No.
Brief facts are as follows Smt.
Heard learned companynsel appearing for the appellant New India Assurance Company as well as the respondents claimants.
The only companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellant Insurance Company, is that inasmuch as the insurance policy was issued for paid driver and number for owner who also happened to drive the vehicle himself at the time of the accident.
