AMRITLAL SOOD Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On August 25, 1970, the fiat car owned by the second appellant collided with a goods carrier on Shimla-Kalka National Highway near Kandaghat Post Office. The car was being driven by the first appellant, a brother of the second appellant. The car was insured with the fifth respondent. Kishan Sarup Thapar, an advocate of Chandigarh who was travelling in the car got injured and was hospitalised for some time. He approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan and Srimur Districts claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The owners and drivers of both the vehicles as well as the insurers were impleaded as parties. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car and passed an award for Rs. 15,800/- against the appellants and the fifth respondent herein. The claimant filed an appeal in the High Court claiming more compensation while the insurer (5th respondent), filed an appeal disputing its liability to satisfy the claim. The claimant's appeal was allowed by a learned Judge in part and the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 20,800/-. The learned Judge held that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the car and the insurer was, therefore, not liable.

(2.) That judgment was assailed in two Letters Patent Appeals, one by the legal representatives of the claimant and another by the driver of the vehicle who is the first appellant herein. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the 1st appellant confirming the view of the single Judge that the insurer is not liable as the claimant was only a passenger in the vehicle. In the other appeal, the Bench enhanced the compensation to Rs. 56,600/-. The driver and the owner of the car have preferred these appeals on special leave.

(3.) The question to be decided is whether the insurer, is liable to satisfy the claim for compensation made by a person travelling gratuitously in the car. The factual findings are not in dispute before us but for the contention of the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the Division Bench is excessive. We have no difficulty in repelling that contention as we find the materials on record to be sufficient to support the award of enhanced compensation.