AJJAPPA REDDI Vs. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the Award dt.26-9-1974 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, in MVC 15 of 1972. The first appeal is by the claimant, who was the injured in a motor-lorry accident, which took place on 14-10-1971 near Adivala on the Poona- Bangalore highway. The other appeal is by the Insurance Company.

(2.) On 14-10-1971 the claimant Ajjappa Reddy had engaged a lorry bearing Registration No.MYU 3838 to transport onions that had been grown in his land to Bangalore. On the way, there was a breakdown of the lorry as its springs broke. Therefore, the driver of that lorry stationed it on the left side of the road, put the wheel on a jack and then proceeded, to Hiriyur to get a spare spring. Ajjappa Reddy and two others were taking rest, Ajjappa Reddy sitting by the side of the stationed lorry, stretching his feet underneath the frame and the body of the lorry. When he was so sitting, another lorry bearing No.MDL 3326 driven by respondent-1 Selvaraj came and dashed against the stationary lorry, thereby moving it. The wheels of that lorry ran over the legs of Ajjappa Reddy, badly damaging both his legs. He was thereafter taken to the hospital at Chitradurga and got treated. He was an in-patient in that hospital for about 20 days and thereafter he was transferred to the Victoria Hospital at Bangalore for treatment, where he had to be an in-patient for a total period of 3 months. A petition under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.One lakh, was filed. It had been alleged that on account of the accident and on account of the injuries sustained by Ajjappa Reddy, his legs have been disabled and they have become useless and will have to be amputated at some time or the other. The case of the respondents was that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was also contended on behalf of the Insurance Coy that the claim could not be adjudicated under the Motor Vehicles Act and it was not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal rejected the contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Coy and held that the claimant was entitled to Rs.25,500 by way of compensation with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the Award, namely, 26-9-74. The injured person has preferred MFA.148/75 contending that the compensation awarded is in; adequate. The Insurance Coy has preferred MFA.425|75 contending that it was not liable to pay any compensation and the matter could not have been investigated under S.110A of the Act. It has also raised contentions regarding the compensation awarded.

(3.) We will first take up the appeal of the Insurance Coy. The contention that the claim could not have been adjudicated under Sec.110A of the Act is, in our opinion, untenable. The lorry had been insured against third party risk. Merely because the lorry itself did not strike against Ajjappa Reddy, it cannot claim that it is absolved of its liability. The striking of that lorry against the stationary lorry, which was the immediate cause for the injury to the person, is covered by the risk, the coverage of which has been undertaken by the Insurance Coy. Under S.110 of the Act, the Tribunals are constituted for "the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles and the insurance policy is also in regard to the risks attendant on the use of motor vehicles in a public place. It is, therefore, clear that this is a claim arising under S.110 of the Act and the Tribunal was competent to adjudicate upon the claim.