KARAN SINGH Vs. MANOHARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short "the Act" filed by the claimant against the award dated 5th May, 1984 passed in Claim Case No. 89 of 1976 by the 1st Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant-applicant, at the relevant time, was 14 years of age and was coming on his cycle on 24-1-76 at 1.30 P.M. towards Betma on the left side of the road. Near the Machal rest house, non-applicant No. 1 came on motor cycle No. MPN 3406 in a high speed, driving rashly and negligently from Machal side, and dashed the appellant on his wrong side of the road, as a result of which the appellant, who was on his left side of the road, fell down and was thrown at a distance of about 15 feet. The appellant received grievous injuries and a fracture in the right thigh. The appellant's cycle was also damaged. The claimant filed an application Under Section 110-A of the Act and claimed compensation for the injuries and damage to the cycle to the tune of Rs. 65,400/-. The respondents denied the claim and contended that at the relevant time, respondent No. 2 was driving and not respondent No. 1, with slow speed on the left side of the road. The Insurance Company supported the pleas raised by the owner and the driver and also contended that as the driver (non-applicant No. 1) was not holding a valid driving licence, according to the terms of the policy, the insurer is not liable to idemnify the owner of the vehicle and to pay the compensation.

(3.) SHRI H.S. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the claimant, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low and that the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is perverse. The Insurance Company has not discharged its burden to prove that respondent No. 1 Manoharlal was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the Insurance Policy. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of the Apex Court in Narcinva V. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antonia Doe Martins and Ors. 1985 ACJ 397. Learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that interest ought to have been awarded at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till payment instead of @ 6% per annum, as awarded by the Tribunal.