ALOKA PUSTI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of the second call, none appeared to press this appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company, This appeal is directed against a judgment and award dated 28.7.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Midnapore. By the judgment and award impugned, the learned Judge has allowed a claim under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), against the owner of the vehicle and not against the insurance company.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant in this case is that the award should have been directed against the insurance company as it appears from the memorandum of appeal. It is also the case of appellant that at the stage of hearing under section 140 of the said Act, learned Judge should have confined his consideration to the quantum of interim compensation and ought not to have fixed up liability of making payment. The extent of liability of the insurance company should not have been gone into and this award should have been directed against the insurance company.

(3.) The learned Tribunal has on finding of fact come to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was used for hire and the insurance policy does not cover injury caused to passengers if the vehicle is used for hire and reward and, as such, the insurance company has no liability whatsoever. This finding of fact is supported by evidence led before the learned Tribunal. It has been argued on behalf of the insurance company that at this stage, there is no scope for reappreciation of evidence. On an analysis of evidence, it has been submitted that the finding of fact cannot be held to be patently absurd or based on no eviidence.