RANCHHOD Vs. GURUBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 9.7.75 passed by the Second Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Indore, in claim case No. 95 of 1973.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as follows : On 5.3.73 at about 5.00 p.m. when Raju, a boy of about 13 years of age was coming from village Hajurganj to Indore he was knocked down by motor truck No. R.S.R. 1837 coming from the opposite, direction on the wrong side of the road. According to the claimant the motor truck was owned by the Respondent No. 5 and was being driven at the time of the accident by the Respondent No. 1. The truck was insured with the Respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Kota (Rajasthan). According to the claimant the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor truck by the driver of the truck and therefore the driver, the owner and the insurance company were liable to pay compensation to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased Raju who succumbed to the injuries. The claimant claimed Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 remained absent inspite of service of notice and therefore were proceeded with ex -parte. The Respondent No. 3 the insurance company contested the claim. The Respondent No. 2 who was joined as a party to the application on the ground that he was the owner of the truck, denied that the truck belonged to him. The Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver in driving the truck. However, the Tribunal held that the identity of the driver of the said truck was not established. The Tribunal, therefore, held the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal assessed Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal the claimant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and requires to be suitably enhanced.

(3.) THE Tribunal held that the truck was insured with the Respondent No. 3. In fact the Respondent No. 3 in its written I statement admitted that the truck was insured with it. However, while passing the award it appears that through slip of pen the Tribunal did not pass any award against the Respondent No. 3. On the admission of the Respondent No. 3 and as found by the Tribunal the Respondent No. 3 is clearly liable to pay compensation to the claimant.