LAWS(BOM)-1994-7-108

RAUJI MURARAO RANE Vs. KUM. SUSHILE V. HIRVE

Decided On July 21, 1994
Rauji Murarao Rane Appellant
V/S
Kum. Sushile V. Hirve Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the Award dated 31st March, 1989, made in Claim Petition No. 10/86. The Claim Petition was instituted by Sushila U. Hirve, present respondent No. 1, who was a young girl anywhere about seven years old at the time of the accident. The story of the accident is that on 28th October, 1985,shegotoutoftheschoolatabout 18 hours and came in the open and while waiting for her brother to come out from the school, a truck bearing registration No. MWV 8577 driven and owned by the appellant came in a reverse and collided against her, as a result of which Sushila suffered injury to her left leg.

(2.) THE Tribunal based on the evidence led, came to a clear-cut finding that the appellant was negligent while reversing his truck and, as a result of which, Sushila suffered fracture injury to the ankle of her left foot. Upon consideration that Sushila was required to be hospitalised for surgical intervention etc. be way of compensation, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was awarded in her favour with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till complete satisfaction and costs of Rs. 2,500/-.

(3.) THE grievance in the present appeal is that regard being had to Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, respondent No. 2 insurer could not have been exonerated inasmuch as the insurer had issued cover note upon acceptance of the cheque. Relying upon Section 96 of the old Act, it was urged that as long the insurer had not cancelled the cover note by notifying the appellant-insured personally, the contract of insurance was subsisting, and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify. The other grievance made in the appeal is that the compensation awarded is excessive and in any event there is no justification for grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on two sub-heads which are in fact duplication of each other.