objections in the course of the hearing „ oontpany.and the said objectionswere trltedT" (MACaAAn AppealA No. 591/20n^ ^xrior.. u treated as an independentanneal11^^' ^ Ptayer for enhancementof the compensationhas been pressed. 2. On the nigh, of 22-23.10.2004, Rahul Sharnta riding on his motorcyclebeanng registrationNo. DL 7AB 5496 (the motorcycle)met W.th an ace.dent involving collision against Maruti Car bearing regtstrationNo. DL 4CF 7803 (the offendingvehicle). The driverand the owner of the offending vehicle were impieaded as first and second respondentsbeforethe tribunaland are now secondand third respondents in the appeal filed on behalfof the insurancecompany. The offending vehiclewas concededlycovered againstthird parly risk by an insurance policytaken out by the registeredownerofthe offendingvehiclefrom the appellant insurance company. The motorcycle rider Rahul Sharma sufferedinjuriesin the accidentand was taken to hospital where during surgicalprocedurehe slipped into coma. He remained comatosetill he died in hospitalon 9.1.2007. The claimpetitionhad been filed duringhis lifetimeon 8.7.2005 through his father Yashpal Sharma. On accountof the death, the claim petitionwas convertedsuitablyinto aclaim arising out ofdeath, by the father, the sole survivinglegal heir. 3. The driver, the owner of the offendingvehicle and the insurance company, inter alia, took up the defence that the accidenthad occurred due to negligenceon the part of the motorcycledriven by Rahul Sharma (the deceased)as he was drivingthe same under the influenceof alcohol. One specificissue in this regard {i.e. issue No. 2) was also framed, the burden oi proofin which regard was placed on the insurancecompany. Evidence was led and thereafterinquiry was concluded. The tribunal
