RASHBIHARI PRASAD Vs. PARBATI KEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in M.A.C. Case No. 6 of 1978. M.A. (F) 3 of 1986 is filed by the owner of the vehicle involved in the occurrence and M.A. (F) 15 of 1986 is filed by the claimants.

(2.) CLAIMANTS are the heirs of Nandalal Kedia, who died in the accident which took place at 11.30 p.m. on 15.9.1977 at Lahoal when he was traveiling in car No. ASA 5171 from Dibrugarh to Tinsukia. Alleging that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car, a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/ - was claimed as compensation. The owner of the car filed a written statement stating that the car was in a mechanically sound condition and it was driven by duly licensed driver, that the car was given for the personal use of his friend Nandalal Kedia on that day and he himself came to know about the accident the next morning. According to him the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving. It took place when the driver, to avoid a major accident with a truck coming from the opposite side, swerved the car and applied brakes. But the car skidded and turned 180 and Nandalal Kedia jumped out through the door and fell down on the iron railings sustaining fatal injuries. He denied his liability for compensation. The insurer filed written statement contending, inter alia, that compensation claim is excessive. The insurer did not admit that all the terms and conditions of the policy had been complied with and put the claimants to strict proof thereof. The insurer also put the claimants to strict proof of other averments in the claim petition, including the averments of negligence of the driver. The insurer took the plea that according to the terms of the policy, the risk relating to life or injury of the occupants is not covered.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the owner contended that the compensation awarded is illegal and excessive and that the insurer is liable. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the insurer is liable. According to him, though compensation awarded under some heads is unsustainable, total amount awarded could be sustained under certain other heads. Learned counsel for the insurer contended that the policy does not cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger like Nandalal Kedia and, therefore, the insurer is not liable and that the compensation awarded is absurd, excessive and unreasonable. According to him there was violation of one of the conditions of the policy since the driver of the car had not taken necessary precautions to prevent the accident.