news details |
|
|
| Rs. 56 lakh relief in blast case | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Aug 22
Allowing the three claim petitions filed by the widows and children of three army personnel killed in an accident that took place on October 23, 2003 following bomb blast in the bus, the Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Jang Bhadur Singh Jamwal, today awarded Rs more than 56 lakhs to the dependents of the deceased persons.
In the petition filed by the wife of deceased Sepoy Ashok Kumar Yadav who was at the prime youth age of 29 years, Court awarded Rs 18, 01, 200 while in another case the court awarded Rs 19, 09, 200 and in case of deceased Hemant Kumar Court also awarded compensation of Rs 19, 09, 200 along with interest @ 7.5% Per Annum from the date of petition filed.
Rejecting the plea of the Insurance Company that the IED blast was an activity of the militants and there is no actionable negligence on the part of the owner or driver and is not covered within the ambit of Motor Vehicle Accident, the MACT observed that at the relevant time the driver of the bus was not holding valid and effective driving license. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited also admitted that the deceased were traveling in ill-fated bus; however, in lieu of the accident a case u/s 302/307 RPC r/w section 3PSS Act was registered. The accident has not been caused by the Motor Vehicular Action. However, it is action of the militants and further observed that Court is of the opinion that claim of the insurance company that they are not liable to pay compensation in such like circumstances is not tenable and referred various judgments including the judgment of J&K High Court in which the then Justice TS Doabia (since retd) in a case titled National Insurance Company VS Shiv Dutt Sharma & Ors held that MV Act section 166 that bomb blast case of accident cause whether of a bomb blast and terrorist act of firing on the passengers are covered within the purview of MV Act.
Presiding Officer MACT further observed that in view of settled preposition of law and the ruling referred above are affecting in the present case. Court said that driver of the bus should have been careful enough to have given the warning to the passengers to search bus himself or by conductor. This aspect of the case has not been denied by the Insurance too or supported therein that it was not the part of the duty of the driver and the conductor of course expressly such duties are not defined anywhere in the MV Act, but the same time the driver and conductor are custodians of the bus and are responsible for their safety of the bus as well as the passengers. If any of the passenger have suffered injuries or death on accident of negligent of the driver and conductor, the victim or his legal representative are entitled to the compensation provided under MV ACT. It is not a violation that at the time of accident the bus was moving and it has also come on record that because of confusion the bus was accelerated by the driver which turned turtle is a factor to reckon with. With these observations, Court awarded compensation of more than Rs 56 lakhs with the direction that out of award 50% of amount be kept in fixed deposit for five years and rest of the amount be paid to the petitioners. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
