NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. HARMIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 08.05.2009 passed by the II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Korba (C.G) in Claim Case No. 32/2007 on the ground that the liability has been fastened on the Insurance Company.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimant are that on 03.06.2006 at about 4.30.p.m., the injured Harmit Singh was bringing the coal by Truck bearing Regn. No. C.G. 12-C/1876. The said Track had to reach Balco Plant, Korba. On the way near Sirda Bridge, the said vehicle which was being driven by Respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner turned turtle, as a result of which, the right hand shoulder of the Respondent No. 1 has been fractured and he also sustained serious injuries on the left hand and wrist. The vein of the left hand has been cut. His left hand has been shortened comparing to the right hand. All the fingers of the left hand are not functioning. After the accident, he was immediately admitted to B.D.M. Hospital, Champa where he was primarily treated. Thereafter, he was admitted in a private hospital of Dr. Surjit Singh where an operation was conducted on his left hand and a rod was inserted. Again the rod was removed by Dr. Chandani and a plate was fixed and graphiting was also done by removing some bone from his waist. Thus, the claimant had undergone surgeries many times and thus he was put to pain and suffering. It is alleged that due to the said accident, he was also put to permanent disability to the extent of 48%. At the time of accident, he was aged about 34 years and was working in a private Company earning Rs. 6000/- per month. He has filed claim application to the tune of Rs. 11,95,000/- on various heads.

(3.) The learned claims Tribunal held that the offending vehicle which belonged to Respondent No. 3 has met with an accident in which Respondent No. 1 has sustained grievous injuries and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2. It has further held that it is not proved that there are breach of policy conditions regarding driving license and permit.