SIRAJ Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act") against award dated 31st July, 2018 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), Unnao.

(2.) The claimant (respondent No.2 herein) filed a claim petition invoking Sections 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation, the Tribunal directed the appellant (who is owner of the offending vehicle) to pay a compensation of Rs.4,70,000/-. The case of claimant (respondent No.2) is that on 21st October, 2016 he was traveling in Vikram tempo (offending vehicle) bearing Registration No. UP 41 AT 3363 which was being owned and driven by the appellant-Siraj Ahmed in a rash and negligent manner, the offending vehicle rolled over, as a result of which the claimant received grievous injuries. The Tribunal, after inquiry, held that the offending vehicle was owned by the appellant and being driven by the appellant, the appellant was having valid driving licence, the claimant received grievous injuries and one of the legs of the claimant was amputated. The Tribunal after referring to the judgment in the case of 'Sikander vs. Ravindra and others', 2011 (9) TAC 928 (Delhi) held that the claimant received 50% disability. The Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (second respondent before the Tribunal). The Tribunal assessed the notional income of the claimant at Rs.150/- per day (Rs.54,000/- per annum), after deducting 50% on account of disability, the Tribunal applied multiplier of fifteen and awarded compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- (Rs.27,000/- x 15). The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, admission fee and medicines, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for traveling expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,70,000/- against the appellant (owner and driver of the offending vehicle). The Tribunal also held that the appellant was having driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and not for driving Vikram Tempo (offending vehicle). He should have commercial/transport license, and therefore, there is a violation of Section 149(2)(ii) of the M.V. Act, and therefore, the first respondent before the Tribunal/appellant is liable to pay the amount of compensation.

(3.) Being dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.