PARMANAND DAYARAM Vs. MANOHARDAS GOVINDDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), filed jointly by the driver, owner and the insurer pertaining to the offending tractor bearing registration No. CPE 7525 against the Award dated 22-6-1984 made by the Illrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 69/82 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- to the injured claimant respondent against the appellants jointly and severally in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured claimant in the motor accident due to collision between the offending tractor and the scooter bearing registration No. MPB 7430 in which the claimant-respondent was a pillion rider.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: On 28-2-1982 at about 6. 30 P. M. while the claimant respondent was riding the pillion of the scooter bearing registration No. MPB 7430 which was being driven by one Prem Kumar on the road going from Nawalakha to Musakhedi the offending tractor with the attached trolley being driven by its driver appellant No. 1, was proceeding ahead of the scooter and when the scooter after getting the signal from the tractor driver was overtaking the said tractor, the offending tractor dashed against the scooter With the result that the claimant was thrown on the ground and the wheel of the trolley, attached to the tractor passed over his body resulting in serious injuries to the claimant who was rushed to T. Choithram Hospital where he remained as an indoor patient from 28-2-1982 to 13-3-1982. The claimant at the time of accident was a student of M. Com. (final) but on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in the motor accident he was unable to appear in the M. Com. (final) examination and consequently one year of his career was wasted. On a claim petition having been filed by the claimant respondent against the appellants before the IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case found that the motor accident resulting in the injuries to the claimant, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor by its driver and that the claimant who was given treatment in T. Choithram Hospital had to spend Rs. 10,000/- on treatment, medicine and special diet during treatment. As regards the quantum of compensation the learned Tribunal has held the claimant entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- as damages besides Rs. 10,000/- spent on treatment i. e. a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellants as compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the said motor accident with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. Being aggrieved by the Award the appellants who are driver, owner and the insurer pertaining to the offending tractor, have filed this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-claimant has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this appeal jointly preferred by the driver, the owner and the insurer on the submission that none of the appellants can claim to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 110-D of the Act which provides for appeal by any person aggrieved by the Award of a Claims Tribunal. The argument is that- the amount of compensation would be payable by the Insurer and not the owner of the vehicle, the latter having been insured for the relevant period, in respect of the liability incurred on account of accident involving the vehicle and the entire amount of liability being covered by the insurer. Thus, it is submitted that the driver and the owner cannot make a grievance against the Award because the amount under the Award is to be recovered from the insurer and not from them. They are, therefore, not the persons aggrieved and as such, not entitled to file appeal against the Award. As regards the Insurer it can make grievance only on the grounds of defences provided in sub-section (2) of section 96 of the Act, but since no grievance is made in this appeal on any of the grounds under section 96 (2) of the Act, the Insurer cannot validly be termed as a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 110-D of- the Act. Accordingly, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable, it having been preferred by persons, none of whom can be called a person aggrieved.