The vehicle met with an accident.
The present appellant as respondent number4 accepted the claim in the claim petition and prayed that the same be accepted and indicated that she was entitled to share in the amount of companypensation.
An appeal was preferred by the claimant Balwant Singh which as numbered above was dismissed by the High Court.
In the claim petition, the present appellant was impleaded as respondent number4 while the driver of the vehicle number HR 41/3347 and the owner of the vehicle were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2.
The deceased was aged about 14 years and was the only son of the appellant.
In the claim petition filed on 15.3.1997 which was registered on 17.3.1997, it was alleged that the son of Balwant Singh claimant and the present appellant, died as a result of the vehicular accident in which the aforesaid car was involved.
It was further held that the insurer has numberliability as the driver was number authorized to drive any vehicle.
A sum of rupees one lakh was awarded along with 12 interest from the date of the claim till realization.
Learned companynsel for the owner of the vehicle on the other hand supported the order.
The claim in the claim petition was that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/ per month.
The deceased lost his life.
A claim of Rs.10,00,000/ was made.
2479 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.16500 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Similar was the stand of the insurance companypany.
The car was being driven by the said Karan Arora.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the husband of the appellant.
Respondent number2 i.e. the owner of the vehicle stated that the driver was a minor and the claim petition was number maintainable against him.
The insurer took the stand that since the death of the deceased was never intimated to the insurer and also about the alleged accident, the petition appears to have been a companylusive petition.
On receipt of the numberice from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in short the Tribunal responses were filed by the respondents.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Though some other points were urged they were treated number to be of companysequences by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal on companysideration of the rival stand came to hold that the accident took place in the manner described.
The accident took place on 5.2.1997 when Karan Arora respondent number1 came to the house of the claimant and requested the deceased to accompany him in his car.
The United India Insurance Company Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the insurer was impleaded as respondent number3.
In the appeal, appellant was respondent number4.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows A claim petition was filed by the husband of the appellant, namely, Balwant Singh in terms of Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act .
The insurer took the stand that it was number liable as it was the admitted stand that the driver did number have any driving licence.
