HR 26 G 0179 which was being used as a Maxicab.
The Claims Tribunal heard the parties on the question of maintainability of the claim petition and by its order dated August 7, 2001 held that the claim petition was maintainable.
His wife and children the appellants herein filed a claim petition under Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal against the Insurance Company claiming companypensation in the sum of Rs.
Siri Bhagwan was the registered owner of a Jeep bearing No.
The Insurance Company filed the written statement and a plea was raised that the claim petition was number companypetent because the deceased was number a third party being the driver and owner of the vehicle and under the Act, 1988 and terms of the policy of the insurance, the Insurance Company is only required to indemnify the owner in case of third party loss.
He himself used to drive that vehicle.
An accident occurred on August 15, 2000 Siri Bhagwan while driving the said vehicle on Rewari Pataudi Road, to save a dog, hit a tree and died.
Being number satisfied with the order dated August 7, 2001 passed by the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred revision petition before the High Court.
10 lakhs.
The High Court by the said order, set aside the order dated August 7, 2001 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, for short, the Claims Tribunal and held that claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short, Act, 1988 was number maintainable against the respondent New India Assurance Company Ltd. for short, the Insurance Company .
M. Lodha, J. The claimants are in appeal by special leave aggrieved by the judgment and order dated October 1, 2002 of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
The said vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company for the period from August 30, 1999 to August 29, 2000.
