GOVERDHAN SINGH Vs. BRIJLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 31.10.2014 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 21/2012, whereby, the Tribunal, while exonerating the insurance company from its liability, has awarded a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,31,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. While, the Claimant has filed the cross-appeal seeking the enhancement of amount of compensation. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Tribunal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28.08.2011, at about 5-6 p.m., deceased Prahlad was travelling along with others on a Tractor attached with its Trolley bearing Registration No.C.G.-15/AE/0625 and C.G.-15/AE/0622 respectively for the purposes of performing the procession ceremony of Lord Krishna. At the relevant time, it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Parmeshwar Singh @ Kunder, owing to which, it turned turtle and said Prahlad got injured badly and succumbed to the injuries during his treatment, while one of his friends also died, giving rise to the institution of the claim petition by his father under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. According to him, the deceased was a student and was engaged in selling newspapers and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.15,30,000/- under various heads.

(3.) While denying the claim, it was pleaded by Non-applicants No. 2 and 3, i.e., driver and owner of the vehicle in question that since it was being used by its driver, who was holding the valid and effective driving license, therefore, in case of any liability being fastened, the same could be indemnified by Non-applicant No.1 Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. While, the insurer of it took a defence that the vehicle in question, which was insured for the agricultural purposes was, however, being used other than its purposes as a commercial vehicle by carrying passengers on hire. As such, no liability could be fastened upon it.