NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DEVIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original respondent no.02 - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No.115 of 2007 by learned Ex-officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, District Beed, dated 18-11-2010, thereby partly allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the present respondent no.01.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are, that the claimant is resident of Yusufwadgaon. He is a tailor by profession, who used to earn Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month and by agriculture, he used to get additional income. He wanted to go to his village Yusufwadgaon on 21-12-2006 and when he came to Shivaji Chowk at Kaij, at that time, driver of jeep bearing no. MH-15/E-1, who was acquainted him, took along with him in the said jeep. There were 3 - 4 persons sitting in the jeep at the relevant time. The jeep driver was driving the jeep in high speed. Due to his rashness and negligence, he lost control over the vehicle and gave dash to the tempo which came from the opposite direction. Claimant sustained serious injury to his right hand, like fracture. Thereafter, some other arrangement was made for the other persons but the jeep driver took claimant in the same jeep from Kallamb road. But instead of taking it to Kallamb, he took the jeep from Mangwadgaon road and at that time also, he had driven the jeep in high speed, rashly and negligently. The said accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the jeep driver. The said jeep was owned by respondent no.01 and was insured with respondent no.02 at the relevant time. The jeep driver was prosecuted by police. The claimant has taken treatment at various hospitals and incurred huge expenditure. However, those accidental injuries have turned in permanent physical disability for him and he cannot do work as before. The claimant had claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal.]

(3.) Respondents no.01 and 02 have filed their separate written statements denying all the averments in the petition. They have denied the allegations about rashness and negligence on the part of jeep driver. Age, occupation and income of the claimant has been denied. The Insurance Company has taken statutory defence that the claimant was proceeding from the vehicle as fare price passenger and therefore, there is breach of terms of policy requiring exoneration of the Insurance Company.