NARSINGH Vs. VIJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment dated 23rd December, 2004, passed by M.A.C.T., Jhabua, in Claim Case No. 111/2002, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 80,000/- was awarded on account of injuries sustained in a motor accident which took place on 24th March, 2002 and the respondent No. 3 was exonerated, present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that claim petition was filed by the appellant alleging that on 24th March, 2002 when appellant Narsingh was going from Dahod to Indore in truck No. GJ-17-T-1996, as labourer. It was alleged that the said truck was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving the said truck met with an accident with the result appellant sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that the appellant was examined in District Hospital where it was found that appellant has sustained fracture of Fibula bone in right leg. It was alleged that claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded.

(2.) Claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that since the offending truck was being driven contrary to the terms of the policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 80,000/- and exonerated respondent No. 3 on the ground that the offending truck was carrying passengers whereas the passengers were not allowed as per terms of policy. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 24 days. Learned Counsel submits that the appellant was operated and rod was inserted with the result there is shortening of leg of 11/2" Learned Tribunal assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 56% which is on lower side. It is submitted that since the appellant was travelling in the truck as a labourer and the respondent No. 3 has not adduced any evidence, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the amount be enhanced and the findings regarding exoneration be set aside.