LAWS(UTN)-2009-3-32

CHANDRA RAWAT Vs. ICICI LOMBARD PVT

Decided On March 25, 2009
Chandra Rawat Appellant
V/S
Icici Lombard Pvt Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant -claimant against the judgment and award dated 27.11.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 78/2005, Smt. Chandra Rawat versus M/s ICICI Lombard Pvt. Motor & another.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the claim, petition, are that on 3.2.2005 at 9.30 p.m. when claimant along with family members was coming to her home from village Futkuan in Alto Car No. U.A. 04B/6524, near Radhaswami Satsang Rampur Road Haldwani, her husband -Narayan Singh took his vehicle on kaccha road due to flash of a truck coming from opposite direction and the said truck came on its wrong side and an unknown vehicle hit the car of the claimant, due to which her car was overturned and her family members sustained injuries. The claimant was taken to Sushila Tiwari Memorial Forest hospital with the help of members of police patrolling car, where she was treated and her C.T. Scan was conducted and seeing her critical condition she was referred to Krishna Hospital, Haldwani and thereafter she was referred to Keshlata Hospital, Bareilly. The claimant claimed a sum of Rupees Five lacs as compensation against the opposite parties.

(3.) THE opposite parties contested the claim petition. Opposite party no. 1 filed its written statement stating therein that claim petition has been filed on wrong and baseless grounds. It is stated that liability to pay the compensation is not of opposite party no. 1. It is also stated that vehicles which hit the vehicle of claimant, were not made party in the claim petition. The said accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle of claimant and driver of vehicle of claimant was not holding valid driving license. It is further stated that burden to prove the factum of accident is upon the claimant. Opposite party no. 1 had not been given any desired information about the policy.