RENUKA Vs. ORIENTRAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded and exoneration of respondent No. 1 vide award dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Fifteenth Member, M.A.C.T., Indore in Claim Case No. 492 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and a sum of Rs. 40,000 was awarded, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that on 18.11.2004 appellant was going in a Maruti van along with her husband, who was owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It was alleged that the said Maruti van met with an accident with a truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 4065. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 1. Further case of the appellant was that in the said accident appellant sustained fracture of radius and ulna in right hand. Appellant was hospitalised where the appellant was operated and rod was inserted. It is submitted that appellant sustained 17 per cent permanent disability. It was alleged that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 1 on various grounds, including on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is not liable for payment of compensation and it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. After framing the issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation and exonerated respondent No. 1 on the ground that offending vehicle was insured as ambulance and the appellant was a gratuitous passenger. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded and the findings whereby the respondent No. 1 was exonerated, present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded is on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, it is submitted that the offending vehicle was a light motor vehicle and the respondent No. 2 was possessing the valid driving licence to drive the same, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that undoubtedly, in the policy it is mentioned that the offending vehicle is ambulance, but the application which was filed by the appellant for correction of the policy was not produced by the respondent No, 1 deliberately. In the policy, it is also mentioned that the capacity of the offending vehicle is zero, while even if it is assumed that it was an ambulance then too it is having the seating capacity as the attendants including the doctors are required to travel in it.