RAMCHANDRA Vs. PAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 5.7.2003 of the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 523 of 2002 by which the Tribunal has restricted the compensation to the appellant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to a sum of Rs. 4,04,000 and the interest thereon. The appellant was a paid driver of Tempo Trax bearing registration No. MP 11-2574 of the ownership of Ashwini Sharma, AW 3. It is alleged by the appellant that while driving said vehicle on 8.4.2001 he was returning from Sanwaria and was going towards village Simlavada, truck bearing registration No. RJ 15-G 2775, came at an alarming speed from the opposite direction and although he brought his vehicle to the extreme left of the road, on account of the excessive speed of truck, the respondent Pappuram son of Shambhuram, driver of truck, could not control it with the result there was a collision between truck and Tempo Trax resulting in severe injuries to the appellant and the other occupants of the vehicle. The appellant sustained compound fractures in both his hands, legs and face. He was immediately rushed to Indore and admitted to Suyash Hospital, where he was hospitalised till 29.5.2001 and during this period he was operated upon thrice but still his bones did not properly unite and there was oozing of the pus from the injuries. In the said accident, he had also lost 14 teeth and as a result of the accident his body has reduced to a state that it became impossible for him to attend to his normal routine and he needed a constant attendant to carry him from place to place even for his daily routine. In the light of the injuries sustained by him and the loss suffered and foreseeable, the appellant had claimed Rs. 24,17,000 as compensation.

(2.) The driver and owner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, despite service of the notice, did not appear with the result the matter proceeded ex pane against them. Insurance company, the respondent No. 3, however, contested the case. It took the plea that the driver of the vehicle did not possess an effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident and it being a patent breach of the conditions of the policy, insurance company was relieved of its obligation to compensate for the harm caused in the accident. It was also stated that the insurance company of the other vehicle, namely, Tempo Trax, had not been impleaded with the result the case suffered from non-joinder of the necessary parties. Under these premises, it was urged that the insurance company was not liable.

(3.) The Tribunal framed seven issues. It found that the accident was the result of rashness and negligence of the driver of the truck with the result the injuries were caused to the appellant as alleged. It also held that the owner and insurance company of Tempo Trax were not necessary parties and that the insurance company failed to prove that the driver of truck did not have a valid licence. It was further observed that insurance company failed to prove that the said truck was not insured with the said company. On these findings, the Tribunal held the respondents liable, severally and collectively and directed the payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,04,000 and interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of application. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount, the appellant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.