NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Vs. DEEPAK DESH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with award dated 20.1.2000 passed in claim case no. 13/98 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, the Insurance company has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated, are as under: - Respondent no. 1 / claimant filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 62,79,290/- on account of personal injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in the motor accident which took place on 24.12.97, when Jeep No. MP-26-C/5370 of which the injured was an occupant, met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the said jeep by its driver. THE tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by its driver and the respondent / claimant was entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 5,75,000/ -THE Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization. THE Tribunal held that the owner, driver and insurer were jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the claimant. Though a written statement was filed by the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company did not file any application for grant of permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all possible grounds. In fact, no permission u/s 170 was granted in favour of the Insurance Company.

(3.) THOUGH a ground of contributory negligence has been taken as ground No. D in memo of appeal filed by the insurance company and it has been pleaded that "the amount of liability to the extent of claimant's negligence ought to have been reduced" by the tribunal, but we do not find present to be a case of contributory negligence. Respondent/claimant was simply an occupant of the vehicle and the vehicle was being driven by respondent No.3 therefore, there is no question of contribution in the accident by respondent/ claimant. The ground taken by the insurance company appears to be misconceived. Moreover, as we have already state that no permission u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was granted to the Insurance Company, therefore, principally, even in a case based on contributory negligence and a finding recorded against it, this ground would not have been available to the Insurance Company in an appeal questioning the finding as regard of negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle.