SUDESH KUMAR KAPOOR Vs. ANIL ANAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, preferred under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.5.1999 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 55 of 1994, passed by learned M.A.C.T./Second Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby the claim petition of the appellant, is dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 16.7.1992, at about 7 p.m., the appellant-claimant was coming from Kichcha to Haldwani in his scooter registration No. UMM 2669. When he reached near Mazar, a truck bearing registration No. UHT 39, owned by respondent No. 1, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed at the scooter. Consequently, the appellant-claimant fell from the scooter and received head injuries. Some people took him immediately to the Base Hospital, Haldwani and got him admitted there. However, next day when his condition did not improve, he was taken to Delhi for further treatment. Due to the injuries received in the accident, the appellant-claimant has lost his hearing power and has become disabled. It is alleged in the claim petition that claimant had to spend Rs. 2,00,000 on his medical treatment. A total sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was claimed as amount of compensation by the claimant. It appears that during the pendency of the claim petition, National Insurance Co. Ltd. was impleaded as respondent No. 2 as the aforesaid truck registration No. UHT 39 was found to have been insured with the said company on the date of accident.

(3.) The respondents contested the claim petition and filed their separate written statement. In the written statement of the respondent No. 1, it is admitted that he is owner of the truck registration No. UHT 39. It is also stated that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. However, it is denied that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. Rather, it is pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the scooterist. National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2, filed its separate written statement in which it is pleaded that no information of the accident was given by the owner of the vehicle to the answering respondent and, as such, provisions of Sec. 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were violated. It is also pleaded that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such National Insurance Co. Ltd. is not liable to make the payment of any amount of compensation.