PRAKASH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KRISHNASINGH SATASINGH KAANIYARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At 1.30 p. m. on 21/07/1982 an automobile collision occurred within the Indian Petrochemicals Limited (IPCL for short) campus near Baroda. In the collision two vehicles were involved. One was a scooter bearing registration No. BHC 1206 of the ownership of Respondent No. 1 Singh Sata Singh and the same at the time of collision was driven by that Respondent No. 1. The other vehicle was an ambassador car bearing registration No. GTH 5198 which belonged to the appellant herein and was being driven by the driver of the appellant. In that ambassador car certain persons were travelling. As a result of the accident Respondent No. 1 suffered some injuries. He sustained a fracture of the left femur bone and he also sustained some other injuries. Some of the passengers travelling in that ambassador car also sustained some injuries. The car was also damaged; so also was the scooter damaged.

(2.) Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara five compensation cases under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (for short the Act) came to be filed. Three of those claim petitions were filed by the passengers travelling in the motor car who claimed compensation in respect of personal injuries sustained by them. The fourth claim petition was filed by the present appellant against the present Respondent No. 1 claiming compensation in respect of the damage to his car. However in the present appeal we are not concerned with these four claim cases. The fifth claim was laid by the present Respondent No. 1 against the present appellant its driver and the Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 with which at the time of the accident the motor car in question was insured for third party risk. Respondent No. 1 in his claim petition laid a claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 70 0 on the allegation that the accident occurred solely because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the motor car in driving the car. Respondent No. 1 contended that as a result of the accident he sustained fracture and some other injuries and he was required to take long-term treatment. He has been left with permanent partial disability. His earning capacity has decreased. He was required to spend large sums of money on treatment etc.

(3.) All the aforesaid five compensation cases came to be consolidated by the Tribunal