UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. KALKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereafter called the "Act"), has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum made by the claims Tribunal. Gwalior in favour of the respondent No.1,Kalka Prasad.

(2.) IN this claims petition, the respondent No. 1 alleged that the about 4 O'clock in the morning of 14-8-1980, he alighted from his "Tonga" at Maharaj Bada, when he was dashed from behind by Tempo No. CPH 5095 belonging to and driven by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant. As a result of the impact, he fell down and his right leg was run over and crushed by the rear left wheel of the Tempo. It was alleged that the accident caused fractures, latceration and bleeding on the right leg, besides fracture of the left ankle joint. On 14-8-1980 itself, he was admitted in the J.A. Group of Hospital, Gwalior, but as he did not get proper treatment he left that hospital on 16-8-1980 and got himself admitted in the private clinic of Dr. Chandak, (incorrectly described as "Dr. Chanakya" in the claims petition). On 16-8-1980, X-ray was taken in the hospital of Dr. Chandak and therefore, at about 5.00 p.m. his leg was plastered, after making him senseless. He was required to spend a lot of money over his treatment in the hospital of Dr. Chandak, where he continued to remain admitted till the date of the claims petition and over thereafter. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 50 '50/-was claimed by way of compensation from the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the vehicle, as per details given in paragraph 13 of the claims petition.

(3.) THE respondent No. 2 filed his written statement on 14-10-1981 admitting the alleged accident, but denying his liability for payment of compensation. Under the circumstances, the appellant amended its written statement and in paragraph 19 of its amended pleadings, it was stated that the respondent No. 2 had colluded with the respondent No. 1 to support his false claims against the appellant.