V V SOMANI Vs. I ANNAPURNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against the award dated 19.8.1998 in O.P. No. 103 of 1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

(2.) The appellant is owner of a scooter and was arrayed as respondent No. 3 in the O.P. The Tribunal passed award in favour of respondent No. 1 herein directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 39,200 with interest at 12 per cent per annum as compensation to the respondent No. 1 for causing injuries in motor vehicle accident. Respondent No. 1 filed the O.P. alleging that she was working as telegraphist and getting salary of Rs. 2,600 per month. On the fateful day when she was going home from office on her two-wheeler Luna, the respondent No. 3 herein came on scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her Luna as a result of which she sustained bone fracture on her right leg and crush injury to her right feet besides multiple injuries to her left feet. She was hospitalised for eight months and she incurred expenditure for treatment. She filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 contested the claim. The insurance company, respondent No. 2 herein, also opposed the claim. The insurance company mainly opposed the O.P. on the ground that the respondent No. 3 who was driving the scooter at relevant time was not having valid driving licence and that the insurance company has to be exonerated from liability under the policy. The appellant and the respondent No. 3 denied involvement of scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 and also denied allegation that the respondent No. 3 was not having valid licence. The Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 25.9.1993 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration No. AIV 4861 by its driver which resulted in sustainment of the injuries to the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief?

(3.) The respondent No. 1 herein examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exhs. A-l to A-23. An assistant in the office of the respondent No. 2 was examined as RW 1. The appellant examined himself as RW 3 and respondent No. 3 as RW 2. After considering evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the scooter bearing No. AIV 4861 was involved in the accident and that respondent No. 3 was not having valid licence. The appellant herein being owner of the scooter is vicariously liable and accordingly passed award.