NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PARITAL VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer is the appellant, which seeks to assail the award, dated 12-12-2005, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional district and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole in O. P. No. 204 of 2003 on the premise that it has no liability to pay the compensation and at any rate the direction of the Tribunal that the appellant should pay in the first instance and recover the same later from the owner is not tenable and valid.

(2.) THE first respondent herein is the injured claimant. He preferred the claim for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident that allegedly occurred on 6/7-9-2002 at about midnight when he was sitting on the motorcycle bearing No. AP 27 F 6550 as a pillion rider, owned by the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant-insurer, being driven by his friend one Jangala Sudheer, at high speed and when the motorcycle reached Ramnagar 10th line, on account of a rikshaw cyclist coming across the road all of a sudden, which resulted in the accident by the motor cycle dashing against the rickshaw, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. According to the claimant, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole and from there he was shifted to Guntur for better treatment and was treated as an inpatient in People's Trauma and Emergency Hospital from 07-09-2002 to 24-09-2002 and had to spend nearly Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical treatment. His right eye was completely blurred and as such he lost his vision and thus he claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

(3.) THE claim was resisted by the insured and the insurer as well. The case of the first respondent-owner was that the pillion rider was sitting callously without having proper holding and therefore he suddenly fell down and the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist. The case of the second respondent-insurer was that the motorcyclist, at the time of the accident, was not having valid and subsisting licence to drive the vehicle and that the compensation claimed was excessive.