DALIP KAUR Vs. VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissing the application of the appellant filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged that on 18th October, 1964 at about 2.00 p.m. appellant was going on a scooter driven by her husbaud and were proceeding from their residence to Karol Bagh via Ganga Ram Marg. It is also alleged that a truck driven by respondent no. 3 Sansar Chand was being driven rashly and it suddenly took a turn and hit the scooter in the middle of the right side on the left side of the road, and as a result of this accident the appellant was injured and removed to the Military hospital where she remained as an indoor patient from 18th to 28th of October, 1964. She suffered infirmity and disability on account of these injuries as a result of the said accident. Respondent No. 1 is the Insurance Company ; and respondent no. 2 is the owner of the truck. Respondent No. 4 is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

(2.) The application was contested by the respondents. The Municipal Corporalion respondent no. 4, pleaded that the truck in question was engaged by M/s. Harmohan Singh & Co. who had been given the contract for removal of the refuse in Karol Bagh Zone and that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had nothing to do with the truck. Respondent 2 and 3 admitted that they were the owner and driver of he truck. Their case, however, was that no accident occurred with the truck and that the injuries received by the appellant were on account of rash and negligent driving by her husband and that the truck did not even touch the scooter. Respondent No. 1 admitted that the truck was insured with it. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries due to the accident with vehicle No. DLG 1416 as alleged ? 2. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Shri Sansar Chand respondent No. 3 ? 3. To what amount if any is the petitioner entitled ? 4. Whether the driver had any valid driving licence at the time of the accident, if not, its effect ? 5. Whether the driver was not driving the vehicle during the course of his employment under respondent No. 2? 6. Whether Municipal Corporation is liable to pay any damages as alleged in para no. 22 of the written statement ? 7. Relief.

(3.) Under Issue No. 4 the trial court has held that Sansar Chand driver had a valid driving licence. Issue No. 5 was found against Insurance Co. and it was held that the driver was driving the vehicle during the course of his employment under respondent no. 2. The appellant did not press issue no. 6 and it was held that the Municipal Corporation is not liable for the injuries. Under issues 1 and 2 it was held that no impact of the truck with the scooter took place and version given by the appellants' witness is not believable. He consequently held that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 could not, therefore, be held liable as no negligence was proved- Under issue No. 3 the Tribunal found the following injuries : 1. Small lacerated cut over left eye brow. 2. Small multiple abrasions on right knee, right leg and left leg. 3. Fracture clavicle (left) 4. Mild cerabral concussion.