RABI SANKAR MAJUMDAR Vs. RAMESWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 arises out of judgment and award dated 11.2.88 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon in diaim Case No. 33/83 thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs. 1,61,280/- together with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum as against the claim of rupees three lakhs as put forth by the claimant respondent.

(2.) The claimant respondent who was; himself a driver earning Rs. 800/- per month filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) cllaiming rupees 3 lakhs for the injuries and for permanent disability sustained by him. His pleaded case was that on 20th of May, 1983 around 9 P.M. his truck bearing Registration No. ASE 5221 was parked near a stone query kmown as Kathalguri. He was standing near his truck when another truck hearing Registration No. ASJ 9415 driven by one Sitaram in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed against the stationary truck resulting in multiple fractures and injuries to the claimant respondent who was standing near his truck. This Sitaram has not been made a party to the appeal jointly preferred by the owner and insurer.

(3.) The respondent's claim was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company on almost every conceivable ground, far beyond the scope of resistance permissible under the law i.e. Sec. 96 (2) (b) of the Act, While admitting its subsisting insurable interest in respect of the offending vehicle. The pleas raised are almost similar and cyclostyled version of written statements invariably filed by the Insurance Companies in such matters resisting the claim of third party victims of accidents resulting in death or injury. Such pleas relating to the maintainability for want of a notice, mis- joinder of parties and non-joinder of, the petition not being in proper form, denouncing the claim as bad in law on account of acquiescence, waiver, estoppel and even collusiveness without pleading a single fact constituting collusion, denying all liabilities denouncing the claim as unsustainable either in law or facts or even under the policy of insurance and at height of all these pleaes reserving right to file additional or amended Written statement which of course was not fled. The appellant Insurance Company has 6Ven pleaded that the stationary truck in question had no registration/fitness and permit at the material time as if all these facts were within the knowledge of the Insurance Company. Had it been so, nothing prevented the Insurance Company to examine some witness, but nothing of the sort has been done.