LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-59

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. CHANDRA DEVI

Decided On March 26, 2010
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ALLAHABAD Appellant
V/S
CHANDRA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Order/Award dated 25.07.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 353 of 2008 filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 on account of the injuries sustained by her in an accident which took place on 15.01.2008 at about 8 a.m.

(2.) The case of the claimant-respondent No. 1 was that on 15.01.2008 at about 8 a.m., she was going on a Motor-cycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 15 AB-0553 with her relative from Meerut to Ghaziabad to meet her relatives; and that when the claimant-respondent No. 1 reached near Moti Nagar on GT road before Gang Nahar, the driver of a black colour Pulsar Motorcycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 14 AK-6130 coming from behind and driving the Motor-cycle rashly and negligently, hit the said Motor-cycle No. U.P. 15 AB-0553, and as a result, the claimant-respondent No. 1 was thrown away from the Motor-cycle and she fell on the road resulting in serious injuries on her head, hands and legs; and that the claimant-respondent No. 1 in serious condition was taken to Krishna Hospital, Ghaziabad from where she was shifted to Subharti Hospital, Meerut on account of her serious condition; and that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant-respondent No. 1 became completely invalid, while prior to the accident, she was completely healthy; and that the accident took place on account of the fault of the driver of Pulsar Motor-cycle No. U.P. 14 AK-6130; and that at the time of the accident, the claimant-respondent No. 1 was aged 45 years; and that the treatment of the claimant-respondent No. 1 was still continuing. The said Pulsar Motor-cycle No. U.P. 14 AK-6130 has hereinafter been referred to as "the vehicle in question".

(3.) The Claim Petition was contested by the respondent No. 2 (owner of the vehicle in question) as well as by the Appellant-Insurance Company by filing written statements.