DILIP Vs. MANSHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos.428/2009,429/2009,430/2009,433/2009 and 434/2009 as in all the appeals impugned award is dated 29/02/2008 passed by II MACT, Mhow whereby all the claim petitions filed by the appellant were allowed and compensation was awarded, however respondent No.3/Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms of the policy.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that appellants who are claimants filed the claim petition separately alleging that on 24/01/2006 appellants in all the appeals were going in a truck bearing registration No.MP-09/KC/6734 which was 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 negligent driving the offending truck was turtled down with the result appellant in all the appeals sustained injuries. It was prayed that claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was also filed by one Mangilal of which claim case No. is 36/2008. The claim petition was contested by the respondent No.3 on various grounds including on the ground that since the offending vehicle was being used in violation of terms of the policy for carrying passengers therefore respondent No.3 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation, however exonerated respondent No.3. Full particulars of each of the appeals and amount awarded are as under :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_2166_ILR(MP)_2012m.jpg</IMG>

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by learned tribunal is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant amount awarded is inadequate. It is submitted that each of the appellant was hospitalized for number of days and some of the appellant also sustained permanent disability. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the amount be enhanced. So far as exoneration of respondent No.3 is concerned, learned counsel submits that undisputedly appellant in all the appeals were traveling in the offending vehicle. It is submitted that Mangilal who also sustained injuries was traveling in the offending vehicle and filed claim petition which was numbered as 36/2008 and was allowed and compensation of Rs.29,900/- was awarded holding that respondent No.3 liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that case of Mangilal is identical to the case of appellant in all the appeals. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned tribunal committed error in awarding lesser amount and exonerating the respondent No.3.