NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. HARPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988, in short "The Act", being aggrieved by the award dated 8.10.1996, passed by the IXth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in MACC No. 13/96, whereby the claim of respondent no. 1 with respect of the injuries sustained in vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs.27264/- alongwith the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e. 5.8.1991 alongwith the cost of the case by saddling the liability to pay the same jointly and severally on the appellant, respondent no. 2, the Driver and respondent no.3, the registered owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 5.4.1991 at about 11 o'clock in the morning, the respondent no. 1 herein alongwith his son was subjected to an accident by rash and negligent driving of the mini bus no. CPD -8266 by the respondent no. 2 under the employment of respondent no. 3, the registered owner of the bus. Resultantly he sustained injuries and became unconscious. He was taken to Hamedia Hospital where after fifteen days he got conscious. Thus, during this period, the surgery of his leg was also carried out. He also lost some vision and power of his right eye. The accident was reported to the P.S. Khajuri Road on the same day on which Crime No. 50/91 was registered. After holding the investigation, the respondent no. 2 was charge sheeted for the alleged offence. In addition to it, it is stated that the respondent no. 1, besides the injuries also sustained loss of his property because his motor cycle was damaged in such accident, on which he spent Rs.2500/- for repairing. It is further stated that inspite long treatment, he has not been fully cured and sustained permanent disability. By giving the elaborate description in pleadings, the respondent no. 1 filed his claim for the sum of Rs.5,18,740/- and for the interest on the same @ 12% p.a.

(3.) In response of the claim petition, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed their reply stating that the respondent no. 1 claimant was riding his motor cycle without having any duly and effective driving licence and such accident was not happened due to any negligence or mistake on the part of respondent no.2.