LAL CHAND Vs. KU. KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the award dated. 27.8.81 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 85 of 78.

(2.) THE fact leading to this appeal, in short, are that the non-applicant/appellant was the owner of scooter CPE 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 Ratnalal 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 tapp 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.) THE learned lower Tribunal, after framing the issues, held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the non-applicant No. 2 and that as a result of the accident claimant Kanta received serious injuries. Consequently, she also could not appear in her examination. It was also found that she had sustained permanent injury and, therefore, she is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 17,000/-. However, it was held that as the non-applicant No.2 had no driving licence to drive the scooter at the relevant time, the Insurance Company was absolved of the liability to pay any compensation in view of the provisions contained in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the non-applicant No.2 had filed this appeal.