BHAVAN GOVIND GARVA Vs. LAKHA SUMAR MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original claimant has preferred this appeal to seek enhancement in compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 487 of 1987 by judgment and award dated 9th July, 1996.

(2.) THE appellant suffered bodily injuries in vehicular accident, which occurred on 11.05.1987. On that day, the appellant was discharging his duties as cleaner in a truck bearing Registration No. GTY 6302. According to him, respondent No.1 was the driver and the truck was owned by respondent No.2. It was insured with respondent No.3. It is stated that respondent No.1 drove the vehicle in full speed and in rash and negligent manner. As a result of the same, he dashed against a truck, which was already parked on the correct side of the road. Due to collision between two vehicles, the appellant received injuries and he was hospitalised. He remained in the hospital for a month or so. According to him, he had suffered serious injuries to his toes and other parts of the body. As a result of such injury, there was amputation of toes and also skin grafting was done. The appellant filed claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for obtaining compensation of Rs.one lakh, which was resisted by respondent No.3 - the Insurance Company. Whereas, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 chose not to contest the proceedings. The Insurance Company filed written statement at Exh.7. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1. It was further averred that there was no insurance in favour of respondent No.2. In other words, there was no contract of insurance existing between respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. It was, therefore, prayed that respondent No.3 was not required to discharge the liability of respondent No.1.

(3.) ON the basis of the material produced before it, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of respondent No.1. The Tribunal, thereafter, assessed compensation payable to the appellant at Rs.13,000/ - and further held that only respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were required to satisfy the award. The Tribunal exonerated respondent No.3.