NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. Vs. SAVITRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Savitri Bai was a young unmarried girl aged about 18 years in January, 1991. Respondent Bhaggu was aged about 42 years. They were both labourers. On 30th January, 1991 both these respondents along with some other labourers were returning on truck No. MPN 5996 after loading stones in this truck at river Patha. This truck overturned on way to Ghoda Dongri causing injuries to both respondents Savitri Bai and Bhaggu. Both the respondents filed separate claim petitions for compensation for injuries sustained by them in this accident. These petitions were registered as Claim Case Nos. 20 and 21 of 1992 and were disposed of by a common award passed on 28.4.1994 by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Betul. This award has been challenged by the Insurance Company in these Misc. Appeal Nos. 886/1994 and 885/1994 which are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) COMPENSATION was claimed by the two injured persons on the ground that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of this truck. Savitri Bai had sustained serious injuries on her right leg fracturing both the tibia and fibula bones. The injuries suffered by Bhaggu were also very grave. His hip bone was fractured on the left side. Both the claimants suffered permanent disability and deformity in their bodies. Apart from their own testimony about their injuries, they had adduced medical evidence to prove their disability. The Tribunal also recorded its own observations regarding the physically disabled condition of both these claimants. Deep scars of the injuries were present on their legs when they were examined two-and-a-half years after the accident.

(3.) IN these appeals the Insurance Company has challenged the award contending that the compensation awarded was excessive and arbitrary, and also that the liability for payment could not be fastened on the Insurance Company in view of the fact that the vehicle had already been transferred by insured Triloksingh on 19.12.1989, prior to the accident. Triloksingh could not, therefore, be liable for the wrongful acts of the driver and the question of the insurer's liability to indemnify the insured under Section 147(5) of the 1988 Act would not, therefore, arise. And since there was no privity of contract between the subsequent purchaser and the Insurance Company the letter could not be held liable for any compensation.