MOHAN RAI Vs. MAHESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall also govern disposal of M.A. No. 299/2003 as this appeal has also been filed against the same awarded by the respondent No... THIS is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an awad dated 24th December, 2002 passed by 1stMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwaliorin Claim Case No. 23/ 2002. By the impgned award the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- with interest to the claimant by way of compenstion for the injury which he sustained in on accident. According to claimant i.e. appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awa4rded by the Tribunl. The claimat has filed this appeal so the question thatarises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent?

(2.) IN M. No. 299/2003, which is the appeal filed by respondentNo.3, submission of the respodent No.3 INsurance Company is that INtrance Company has wrongly been held able for payment of compensation as driver of the offending vehicle was not having the badge at the relevant time. It is submited that appeal filed by the respondent No.3 be allowed and the respondent No.3 be exonerated from the payment of compensation.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel of respondent No.3 submits that appellant was not having badge while appellant was driving. For this contention separate appeal has been filed by the respondent No.3. LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that on the date of accident as per the driving license Ext. D-1 of the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has no endorsement authorizing him to drive a public service vehicle (Bus) in the circumstances he was not authorized to drive the insured vehicle. LEARNED Counsel submits that on account of breach of policy conditions learned Tribunal committed error in holding respondent No.3 liable for payment of compensation. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Sulochana v. Chandran, 2004 AC J 2118 = 2005 (1) TAC 734, wherein Kerala High Court has held that in a case where a person without authorization and consequent driver's badge can be said to have an effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company has to first meet the liability and recover the amount so paid. It is submitted that appeal filed by the respondent No.3 be allowed and respondent No.3 exonerated. Looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made.