NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. DINESH KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.10.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal (in short the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 5 of 1998, Dinesh Kumar Arora v. Jabar Singh and Ors. whereby compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 has been awarded in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment against the Insurance Company-appellant.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are that claimant Dinesh Kumar Arora filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 3,42,000 for the injuries suffered by him on 14.7.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of the Commander Jeep Taxi No. UP 07C-2125 by its driver in the accident which occurred near Gholapani in village Dagar. Due to the accidental injuries, the claimant was treated in different hospitals and incurred expenses on various counts. The claim petition was filed against the driver, owner and the insurer of the vehicle. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed their written statements separately and contested the case. The accident was admitted but it was asserted that due to technical failure of the vehicle the accident occurred. The liability to pay compensation rests upon the insurer of the vehicle. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed its written statement and admitted insurance of the vehicle. The validity of driving licence of the driver was challenged as well as valid registration.

(3.) IN this appeal, the impugned award has been assailed mainly on the point of quantum of award. A ground of overloading was also taken by the appellant to show violation of policy condition. The ground of overloading of the vehicle was not at all pressed by the appellant at the time of framing of issues before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed copy of the written statement with the memo of appeal. I have gone through the averments made in the written statement. No such plea of overloading of the vehicle was taken by the insurer in its written statement. The validity of driving licence was challenged. Moreover, in the proceedings the Insurance Company has led any evidence to substantiate its contention regarding overloading. Therefore, the ground of overloading of vehicle is misconceived.