NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE accident in this case took place on 20. 12. 1989. According to claimants, Munnibai aged 20 years, daughter of PW 1 and PW 5 along with other labourers was travelling in a truck loaded with stone chips. She had left her watch in the field and wanted to fetch it. She asked the driver of the truck to stop the vehicle which he did. While she was alighting from the vehicle, the driver rashly and negligently started and drove the vehicle as a result of which she fell down and got entangled under the wheel of the vehicle and was dragged. She sustained injuries and died. Her parents aged 55 and 50 years respectively filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- against driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. The owner and driver remained ex pane. The insurer filed written statement denying all the material averments and pleading exoneration. Tribunal held that Munnibai died on account of the injuries sustained as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs. 60,600/- with interest of 15 per cent per annum from the date of application and costs. The insurer being aggrieved has filed this appeal.

(3.) AT the outset, learned counsel for the claimants raised an objection regarding the maintainability of appeal by the insurer in regard to the findings of quantum, rash and negligent driving and the rate of interest. The answer of the appellant is that this was a clear case of collusion between the claimants and the driver and owner of the vehicle, such collusion was alleged in the statement of insurer and at the stage of evidence, the counsel for insurer prayed before the Tribunal for permission to cross-examine in regard to all aspects of the matter, such permission was granted and cross-examination was permitted. In other words, according to learned counsel, the Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to raise defences appropriate to the owner and the driver. On a reading of the written statement and the depositions, these submissions appear to be correct. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the insurer can urge these contentions.