KARANSINGH Vs. OMPRAKASH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the petitioner Karansingh under Section 173/1 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 01/10/2013 passed by 9th M.A.C.T, Indore in claim case No. 06/11.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant Karansingh was travelling on his scooter bearing registration No. M.P.09/J.P./9889 on 11/09/2010 from his house towards Rajkumar Bridge. When nearing the Malwa Mill Chowki a loading rickshaw bearing No. M.P.09/L.N./1256 being rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 2 Arvind Arya came from behind and dashed his scooter. As a result of which he fell down and received injuries on both the hands, legs and waist and other parts of the body. He was admitted in M.Y. Hospital, Indore for treatment and a report was filed on Police Station Pardesipura, Indore. As a result of the injuries resulting in the accident, he suffered a permanent disability and therefore, filed the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, stating that he was working as a cycle repairer as well as seller of cycle parts and earning Rs. 7,000/- per month and claimed a damage for Rs. 1.00 lakh jointly and severally from all the three respondents.

(3.) Counsel for the non-applicant No. 3/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited resisted the claim stating that neither the accident had taken place by loading rickshaw bearing No. M.P.09/L.N./1256 or that the applicant was earning Rs. 7000/- as claimed. He also denied the injuries and also raised the said plea that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence and loading rickshaw was being driven without the fitness certificate. He also submitted that the driver had a non transport vehicle licence and therefore, he could not drive a transport vehicle and there was violation of conditions of insurance policy. The intimation was also not given to the insurance company regarding the accident and the accident has taken place due to negligence of the applicant himself. The owner and driver of the impugned vehicle, however, remained ex-parte.