RAMCHANDRA YADAV Vs. MASTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is owner's appeal against the award dated 23rd April 1998 passed in claim case No. 74/91 whereby learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba allowing the claim petition of respondents No. 1 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- in favour of the claimant/respondent and held the owner of the vehicle liable for payment of compensation by exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to satisfy compensation amount. The appellants are legal representatives of original appellant Ram Deo Yadav, who was registered owner of the Jeep bearing registration No. U.M.B./5253. Briefly stated the case of the claimant before the Claims Tribunal was that on 8-6-1991 he was going with his wife and others in the jeep from Champa to Korba. The jeep was owned by Ram Deo Yadav and driven by Ram Gopal. The driver of the jeep, rashly and negligently driving the jeep, dashed it against a culvert, as a result he sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the 100 bedded Hospital, Korba from where he was referred for further treatment to Bhilai Steel Plant Hospital. Ultimately, his left leg was amputed. Before the accident, he was working as a contractor and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from that profession. However, because of the disablement he is not able to do his business and he has lost his earning capacity. The vehicle was insured for the relevant period with Non-applicant No. 3. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 24,98,000/- under various heads.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 in their reply stated that the claimants are acquainted with the appellant as they are their neighbours. They were traveling in the jeep as gratuitous passenger and no fare was charged from them. They denied that the jeep was driven rashly and negligently. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure of Tie Rod. The claimant sustained simple injuries and his leg was amputed because of his own negligence, as he did not undergo proper treatment. The claimant has made inflated claims, as he is still capable of doing his business. The Insurance Company in its reply denied allegations of the claimant and further contended that claimant was traveling in the vehicle as passenger after paying fare and, therefore, as per condition of the insurance policy, there is breach of policy condition, as private vehicle was used for hire and, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation. During trial, claimant examined himself as AW-1, his wife Kuldip Kaur as AW-2, Gurudev Singh as AW-3 whereas, Non- applicant No. 1 Ram Gopal (driver) has been examined as NAW-1. Non-applicant No. 3 did not examine any witness.

(3.) SHRI Rakesh Anthoni, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that he had submitted original insurance policy during trial. However, original records of the claim case were destroyed due to fire in the record room. The appellant had submitted copy of the original policy, but learned Claims Tribunal refused to accept the same. He has filed copy of the insurance policy along with memo of appeal. From perusal of the insurance policy, it would be evident that vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No. 3 for the relevant period. He further argued that the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent/claimant is highly excessive. Shri Ashish Surana, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, contended that left leg of the claimant was required to be amputed as a result of the accident. Because of the amputation, the claimant suffered 100% permanent disability and there is total loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal after due consideration of the evidence available on record has rightly assessed compensation which does not call for any interference. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S.K. Mishra, Counsel for respondent No. 2, fairly submitted that the vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No. 3 for the relevant period and the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is erroneous. However, he contended that the vehicle in question was insured as a private vehicle. From perusal of the policy filed by the appellant along with memo of appeal, it would be evident that the appellant did not pay any extra premium for covering risk of any gratuitous passenger. The vehicle was used for hire, as the claimant pleaded in the claim petition that he was traveling in the jeep after paying fare. Reliance is placed in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned award and evidence available on record.