TARACHAND NEMA Vs. CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle involved in the accident has been directed against the award dated 15-5-1980 made by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in Claim Case No. 20 of 1977.

(2.) ON 7-7-1977, deceased Ramesh aged about 25 years, a rikshaw puller was knocked down by truck No. M. P. R. 7199, opposite Khalsa Higher Secondary School, in the city of Raipur. Ramesh was thrown away due to the impact of the truck and died instantaneously. Claimants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased Ramesh made a claim of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for the death of their son by contending that the accident in which Ramesh had died had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant Tarachand Nema who was also the owner of the said truck which was insured by the New India Assurance Company ltd.-respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company" ).

(3.) THE appellant contested the claim by contending that originally the truck in question belonged to one Sardar Gurucharan Singh from whom he had purchased the same on 15-8-1976, on being financed by respondent No. 3 Laxman Rao. He admitted that he was the owner of the truck but took the plea that he was not rash and negligent in driving the truck and the deceased himself had dashed against the truck. He also pleaded that the former owner Sardar Gurucharan Singh had insured the truck with the respondent insurance company and after he purchased the truck an intimation to that effect was given to the respondent insurance company and the insurance company had attorned the policy in his name, which was held by the former owner of the truck and had latter on also issued a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form. Respondent No. 3 Laxman Rao pleaded that he had financed the appellant for purchase of the truck. The respondent-insurance company contested the claim by pleading that the accident had not occurred due to any rash and negligent act on the part of the owner/driver of the truck. The Insurance Company also pleaded that the appellant had not insured the truck with it.