KALIN BAI Vs. S A SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the award dated 29.3.2003 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Balod District Durg in Claim Case No. 16/2000 dismissing claim case of the appellant/claimant filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Facts of the case in brief are that on 3.4.2000 a claim case was filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs. 5,70,000/- inter alia pleading that at the relevant time she was working as attendant in the Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP) hospital, that on 21.4.1999 she along with other persons had gone to the hospital at Dallirajhara for celebrating the hospital day and while returning therefrom in the minibus of BSP, respondent No. 1 namely Dr. S.A. Singh sat on the driver's seat and on account of his rash and negligent driving the vehicle turned turtle as a result of which she sustained number of injuries on her body including chopping off her right hand.

(2.) Respondents No. 1 namely Dr. S.A. Singh contested the claim on the ground that at the relevant time he was not driving the vehicle. He took a plea that even assuming that he was driving the vehicle he was holding a valid driving licence for the said purpose and that being so the liability would be of respondent No. 3/insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant. Respondent No. 2 (BSP) took a preliminary objection in its written statement that under the Workmen Compensation Act, an amount of Rs. 1,19,851/- was already given to the claimant and therefore the application filed by her under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. Apart from this, other general grounds were also taken by the BSP. Similarly, respondent No. 3/insurance company also denied its liability on several general grounds including that as the claimant did not file all the relevant documents in support of her claim, it is not liable to satisfy the claim.

(3.) After recording the evidence of the witnesses, claim of the appellant/claimant has been rejected by the Tribunal holding that she had already received a sum of Rs. 1,19,851/- from the BSP, her claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is not tenable. It is this award which is under challenge in this appeal.