MUNISHVAR Vs. GANPATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a claimants appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against award dated 21-12-2000 passed in claim case no. 26/1999 passed by III Additional Member, m. A. C. T. , Jaora (M. P.) awarding a sum of rs. 35,500 to the claimant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as alleged are that on the date of incident i. e. on 21 -9-1997 at 4. 30 p. m on the Mhow-Neemuch National highway near Village Jhalva vehicle bearing registration No. R. N. Q. 8283 met with an accident and the claimant Ramdayal son of raghunathji Patidar aged 20years resident of village Jhalva, Tehsil Jaora, who was travelling with other passengers received injuries due to the collision with another bus. The right hand of the claimant was broken and other passengers also received injuries. The matter was reported at the police station Kalukheda, tehsil Jaora, District Ratlam and the diver of the truck bearing registration No. R. N. Q. 8283 was arrested by the police and offence was registered at No. 62/97 for offence under sections 279, 337, 338 of the I. P. C. The injured were sentto their medical examination and after completion of the Investigation the driver of said truck was duly charged. The appellant filed claim No. 26/99 stating that he was a sales agent and earn Rs. 3,000 per month and due to the accident he had also received injuries on the left leg on the buttock and on the right hand on the shoulder, beside his private parts of body were also severally damaged and that he had become incapable of walking freely and could not carry on his work due to the injury on right hand; he was also disabled and unable to carry on his daily routine duties and stating that the amount expended on his treatment and for pain and suffering he claimed a total sum of rs. 5,04,000.

(3.) THE driver and the owner of the bus remained ex parte whereas respondent insurance Company disputed the claim by stating that the claimant had not received the injuries as alleged and since the owner and driver of the other bus bearing No. M. P. 13k 1786 were not made a party, the claim suffers from non-joinder of parties. Moreover, taking usual the ground that the driver of the alleged bus did not posses a valid and legal driving licence at the time of the accident and so there was violation of condition of policy, beside composite negligence of both the drivers claimed that the Insurance Company was not liable.