MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. RAJKUMARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an owner's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by appellant Mahendra Singh being aggrieved by the award passed by the Ist Additional Member, Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar (West Nimar) in claim case No. 42/2005 awarding Rs.2,04,626/ to the non appellants/Legal Representatives of deceased Rajkumari Bai and nonapplicant/respondent No.2 is the driver of the alleged vehicle. Whereas the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 has been completely exonerated.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that one Rajkumari Bai, who died during the pendency of the claim, had filed an application for grant of compensation since she was a victim of motor vehicle road accident. It is stated that on 2/10/2004 at 1.001.30 o' clock Rajkumari was going on foot to the clinic for her son Madanlal. On reaching near the house of one Mahesh Khode at Teachers' colony, Maheshwar, nonapplicant No.2 Gema @ Ganpat driving the tractortrolley, belonging to appellant Mahendra Singh, rashly and negligently dashed against her. The tractor registration no. was MP 10A7899 and the trolley registration was No. MP 10 A 7900. As aresult of collision, she fell on the ground and the wheel of the trolley went over her at the waist. She received injuries on her legs also. She was taken to the Govt. hospital at Maheshwar. Her injuries being serious, she was referred to Gokuldas hospital in Indore. She was operated on her waist and hospitalized at Choitaram hospital, Indore since her condition was deteriorating. She was treated by Dr. Jinsiwale until she recovered. It was however, alleged that she received a permanent disability and could not walk properly. She earned Rs.200/ per day from stitching and knitting. She spent about Rs.2,00,000/ for her treatment and she claimed Rs. 4,00,000/ as compensation before the Claims Tribunal.

(3.) Nonapplicant Nos.1 & 2 resisted the claim. However, they remained exparte in the Tribunal. They did not file any reply. Nonapplicant/Insurance Company resisted the claim and took the plea that the alleged vehicle was registered only for agricultural purposes and at the time of the incident the vehicle was carrying sand and gitty and its use was contrary to the conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance Company be exonerated. And it is also alleged that the nonapplicant Rajkumari had received injuries when she was working onanother contract and she had fallen near the trolley. In the alternate the Insurance Company also claimed that the driver of the tractor did not have a valid licence and hence the Insurance Company was not liable for the payment of the compensation.