NIRAJ PRABHU DAYAL Vs. MOHANLAL BHERULAL BAGORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/claimant has directed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 11-8-1992, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 330/90, thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 2, Insurance Company and holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,000/along with the interest at the rate of 18% p. a.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that claimant/appellant filed claim petition before the Claims Tribunal on the assertion that on 6-11-1985, he was travelling as a passenger in a tempo bearing registration No. MPN 8177, at about 4. 30 p. m. the tempo met with an accident. The claimant/appellant sustained injuries in the accident, and caused partial permanent disability in his hand. The Claim Petition was resisted by respondents. Learned tribunal partly allowed claim petition filed on behalf of the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 37,523/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of filing of the petition with further direction that whole compensation amount shall be paid by the Insurer i. e. respondent No. 2, Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, respondent No. 2, Insurance Company filed Misc. Appeal No. 333 of 1990 before the learned Single Judge of this Court on the contention that as the claimant was travelling in the aforesaid tempo as a passenger, therefore, in view of the terms of the Policy, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ -. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order partly allowed the appeal and held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and interest thereon. However, learned Single Judge, enhanced the rate of interest from 12% to 18% p. a. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the claimant/appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Rajpal learned counsel for the appellant and Shri H. G. Shukla learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Shri A. H. Khan learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 and 5. None appeared for other respondents.