LAWS(UTN)-2007-6-66

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ALLAHABAD Vs. JEET SINGH BHAKUNI AND ANR.

Decided On June 26, 2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ALLAHABAD Appellant
V/S
JEET SINGH BHAKUNI AND ANR. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, preferred under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 30th Oct., 1998, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 463 of 1993, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Nainital.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 8th May, 1993 Shri Jeet Singh Bhakuni (injured), aged about 40 years, was travelling in Bus No. 02/ 5870 from village Saur Vinayak to Kotabagh, which met with an accident. He remained admitted in B.D. Pande Hospital, Nainital for about 27 days for his treatment. Smt. Uma Shah (respondent) is the owner of the vehicle. The bus was being driven by Prem Singh. The vehicle, at the time of accident was insured with National Insurance Company (appellant in this app eal). The present contesting respondent filed a Motor Accident Claim petition No. 463 of 1993, for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,35,000.00 on account of the injuries sustained by him and the expenses incurred. The accident was not denied either by the owner of the vehicle or by the driver. However, it was denied that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle pleaded that the Bus No. 02/5870 was insured with the National Insurance Company at the time of the accident. The owner of the vehicle in its written statement alleged that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of its driver but it occurred due to the mechanical defect. The Insurance Company pleaded that it was not liable to make any payment. The Insurance Company in its written statement alleged that the insured has clearly violated the conditions of the policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specially of provision in Sec. 149 (2) (c) in carrying the passengers much beyond the seating capacity of 29 in all.

(3.) The Tribunal framed following two issues:-