LALCHAND BHAGWANDAS Vs. KANTA NARAYAN JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the award dated 27-8-1981 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 85 of 1978.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the non-applicant/appellant was the owner of scooter CPK 3274. On 12-3-1978 the aforesaid scooter was given by non-applicant No. 1 to non-applicant No. 2 for driving it during the course of the employment, because non-applicant No. 2 was in the employment of non-applicant No. 1 on that date. The aforesaid scooter was insured with non-applicant No. 3 Insurance Company. According to the respondent claimant, on 12-3-1978 she had gone with her parents to the house of one Ratanlal who is related to the claimant; At 2 p. m. she went to the other side of the road of the house of Ratanlal for drinking water and after drinking water from the water tap when she was standing by the side of the road, the Non-applicant No. 2 reached there driving the scooter in question in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter against the claimant-respondent. As a result of the dash the claimant fell on the road and the wheels of the scooter passed over the right leg of the claimant. The scooter could not be stopped because of excessive speed, but it stopped at a distance of fifty steps. Due to the accident the non-applicant received injuries and she was admitted to M. Y. Hospital for five days and a plaster was applied on her right leg. As a result of the injury she sustained permanent disability and she Had to incur heavy expenditure for her treatment. Therefore, she claimed Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation from the non-applicants.

(3.) DENYING the aforesaid allegation, non-applicant No. 1 averred that the scooter was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation if the claimant is held to be entitled to any compensation. The non-applicant No. 2 while denying the allegations made by the claimant averred that the claimant was playing on the road with other children. At that time the non-applicant No. 2 reached there driving the scooter at a slow speed. When the non-applicant No. 2 reached the office of Shri R. C. Pande, Advocate the claimant came running all of a sudden in front of the scooter and as such she was responsible for the accident, she being negligent in herself dashing against the scooter. The non-applicant No. 3, Insurance Company inter alia took a plea that the non-applicant No. 2 had no driving licence to drive the scooter and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.