LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-53

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ANIL KUMAR JAISWAL

Decided On June 24, 2019
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA Appellant
V/S
ANIL KUMAR JAISWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these appeals filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of the same accident occurred on 18/09/2010 involving vehicle Truck TATA ACE registration No. UP64 H 4541, in which the claimants suffered grievous injuries, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Both these appeals i.e. MAC No. 1109/2013 and MAC 1110/2013 have been preferred by the owner-driver of the vehicle under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 06/09/2013 passed by First Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 156/2011 related to MAC No. 1109/2013 awarding total compensation of Rs. 18,700.00 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization and in Claim Case No. 157/2011 related to MAC No. 1110/2013 awarding total compensation of Rs. 1,08,600.00 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization, in favour of claimants fastening liability on the non-applicant No. 1/owner-driver of vehicle and exonerated Insurance Company on the ground that at the time of accident non-applicant No. 1/owner-driver of offending vehicle Rajesh Kumar Gupta not having valid and effective license for driving the light goods vehicle.

(3.) As per averments in the claim petitions, on the date of accident 18/09/2010 around 04:30 PM Anil Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, alongwith one Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 22 years, was going to village Rewapur from Ambikapur by motorcycle Yamaha Crux bearing No. CG15 C 3630. The motorcycle was being ridden by Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Anil Kumar Jaiswal was a pillion rider. However, on the way non-applicant No. 1 by driving TATA ACE bearing No. UP64 H 4541 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said motorcycle, as a result of which both Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Anil Kumar Jaiswal suffered grievous injuries. At the time of accident the offending vehicle was owned-driven by appellant/non-applicant No. 1 and insured with non-applicant No. 2.