ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SOMENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the award dated 20.7.2006 passed by MACT/Special Judge (S.C/S.T. Act), Mainpuri whereby the claim petition of the respondent u/s 163-A Motor Vehicles Act had been partly allowed and a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- have been awarded to him.

(2.) It appears that in the night of 5/6.3.2003 the claimant-respondent as driver of Maruti Van UP 80J/2909 was returning from barat along with others and at about 1 a.m. when they reached near culvert of Karri on Kishni-Etawah road, some 7-8 miscreants had blocked the road by keeping logs of trees and when the claimant stopped the vehicle, the miscreants tried to open the window and when claimant resisted they fired two shots on the persons sitting in the car injuring the claimant and Manoj. Udai Pratap Singh and Manoj also fired shots from their licensed rifles in self defence, then the culprits made their escape good in an Armada vehicle. The report of the incident was lodged by Udai Pratap in P.S. Kishni. In the incident, the claimant suffered fire arm injury near his right eye. The bullet had pierced in his body. He was immediately admitted in District Hospital, Mainpuri but was referred to S.N. Medical College, Agra and then he was admitted in Ram Raghu Hospital, Agra where he underwent surgery and bullet was taken out from his left temporal. On 13.3.2003 he was referred to RPI Centre of AIIMS, New Delhi. The claimant has claimed that he lost sight in his eye and filed claim petition for an award of Rs. 6.70 lacs against the owner and insurer of Maruti Van aforesaid. The Insurance Co. has contested the claim petition and denied the allegations of the claimant contending that he is owner of the vehicle and in collusion the petition has been filed. They further contended that the claimant had no valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. The claimant had examined himself as PW 1 and also produced Sanjiv Kumar PW 2 and filed several papers. The appellant had examined Badan Singh DW 1 and Kapil Dev Tripathi DW 2 (both officials of ARTO, Etah) to prove that no driving license was issued to the claimant and he has filed fake driving license. The learned Tribunal after hearing parties' counsel has concluded that the claimant suffered grievous injuries while using the motor vehicle and the incident in question amounts to 'motor accident' and partly allowed the claim petition as stated above. However, he recorded finding that the appellant could not prove that the claimant had no valid and effective license to drive the vehicle. Aggrieved the insurer has come up in appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The counsel for the respondents did not appear in the Court.