LAWS(MPH)-1975-7-21

ANAND INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. HASANALI

Decided On July 21, 1975
The Anand Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Hasanali and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10th February, 1972 passed by the Motor. Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Motor Accidents Claim case No. 35 of 1970.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as fellows: On 2nd November, 1.968, at about 6 p. m. a truck bearing registration No. MPE -9916, belonging to Respondent No. 3 and driven by Respondent No. ', dashed against one Kasamali, a boy aged fourteen years, as a result of the accident, Kasamali died when he was removed to the hospital. Respondents No. 1 and 2 the parents of Kasamali, lodged a claim under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation. The applicant -Respondents No. 1 and 2 averred that the accident resulting in the death of their son was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck. It was further averred that Respondent No. 4 who was driving the truck, did not possess a driving licence for driving the truck. The present Appellant, who were the insurers of the truck in question, were also impleaded as non -applicant No. 3.

(3.) ON the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal found that Respondent No 4 was driving the truck at the time of the occurrence, that he had learner's driving licence for driving light motor vehicles, and that the death of Kasamali took place as result of the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck by Respondent No. 4. The Tribunal further held that, in the circumstances of the case, the claimants were entitled to compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,000. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the claimant -Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 payable by all the non -applicants i.e. the Appellant and Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 Aggrieved by the award against the Appellant, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have also filed cross objections assailing the quantum of compensation awarded.