NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed on behalf of the insurer/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (in short "the Act") being aggrieved by award dated 9-10-02 awarding the claim of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the sum of rs. 47000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% P. A from the date of filing the claim petition.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 29-6-2001 at about 10. 30 P. M. in the night, the respondent No. 2 being employee of respondent No. 1, after giving the services of his horse in some marriage ceremony was returning to home, on the way such horse was dashed by the auto bearing registration No. CIQ 3937 driven by respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner, resultantly along with respondent No. 2 such horse also sustained the injuries in its right leg and in consequence of it, the horse succumbed to injuries. The F. I. R regarding the incident was lodged at P. S. Cantt, Sagar. The post-mortem of the horse was carried -out at Veterinary hospital, Sagar, while respondent No. 2 was taken to the hospital where his m L C report was prepared. Respondent No. 2 suffered huge expenses on his treatment and also sustained the loss of income. As per further averments, the earning of the respondent No. 2 was Rs. 20,000/- per annum, while the cost of the horse was Rs. 35,000/ -. The respondent No. 1 has been deprived from the future income which he would have earned had the horse alive. With these averments, the respondent No. 1 preferred his claim for Rs. 3,00,000/- regarding horse and its income while the respondent No. 2 preferred his claim for the sum of Rs. 18,000/ -.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 remained ex parte in the Tribunal while in reply of respondent No. 4, the averments of the claim petition are denied. It is also stated that the claim is preferred on false pretext, while in the reply of the appellant insurer it is stated that the alleged claim is not tenable either in law or on facts. It is accepted that the auto was insured with it with covering the risk of third party, therefore, its liability, regarding the damages of the property, was limited only up to Rs. 6,000/- and not more than this amount. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the alleged vehicle.