RAMJEELAL Vs. DEENANATH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 preferred by the claimant/injured is directed against an Award dated 13th November 2003 in Claim Case No. 99/2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (M.P.) with a prayer for enhancement of the impugned Award under appeal by holding the respondent No.3-New India Insurance Company liable to to make payment of the Award to the claimant/injured in accordance with law.

(2.) Indisputably, respondents No.1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not prefer any appeal nor file any cross-objection against the Award assailing the impugned findings in this appeal.

(3.) Admitted facts of the case are that on 13nd May 2001, at about 10-30 a.m., injured Ramjeelal was travelling in a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP06/JA 0465, which was driven by Raju (Respondent No.2) and owned by Deenanath (Respondent No. 1). In mid-way to Morena, near Hetampur, at A-B National Highway road, due to negligence and rash driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the said trolley attached with insured tractor turned turtle and consequently Ramjeelal got seriously injured. On the FIR of the accident by the injured Ramjeelal, the Crime was registered against the driver by the police and a chargesheet was filed before the criminal court. It was found that at the time of accident, the offending tractor-trolley was covered under the "Private Agriculture Use Insurance Policy" with the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 and on the date of the alleged accident, the driver of the offending vehicle also possessed valid driving licence to ply the vehicle. The learned tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the claimant, owner as well as the Insurance Company and after hearing them passed an Award in favour of the claimant/injured for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in all heads. The tribunal however exonerated the Insurance Company from liability to make payment of compensation amount due to violation of the terms of the policy known as "Private Agriculture Use Insurance Policy" and instead directed the owner and driver/respondents No.1 and 2 of the insuring vehicle to satisfy the awarded amount to the claimant/injured. The Insurance Company/respondent No.3 was also directed to proceed for recovery of the interim amount against the insured.