LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-13

ASHISH MEHTA Vs. BALJEET SINGH

Decided On February 24, 2010
ASHISH MEHTA Appellant
V/S
BALJEET SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by the owner, is directed against the award dated 28.7.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hisar, vide which the claim petition filed by the claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act stands allowed.

(2.) THE claimant sought compensation on the pleadings that on 26.10.2005 the claimant had parked his jeep No. DL 2C- D 7491 near the STD of Baljeet at village Surewala Chowk, Narwana. Jasbir Singh, r/o Hasangarh, also parked his motor cycle Hero Honda Splendour behind it at some distance. A Trax bearing registration No. HR 20-H 8825 was also parked on the side of the road. At about 8 a.m., a truck bearing registration No. HR 62-8896 loaded with jiri came from Uklana side, which was being driven by Subhash, respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner. While taking a turn at fast speed, he lost control of the truck and hit the parked Trax. Satpal, driver of Trax, suffered injuries and thereafter truck turned turtle and fell on the motor cycle as well as the jeep No. DL 2C-D 7491. It was, thus, claimed that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. F.I.R. was registered qua this accident at Police Station Uklana, vide F.I.R. No. 210 dated 26.10.2005. THE claimant had claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh) along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the respondents.

(3.) THE insurance company contested the claim on the plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and the driver of the offending vehicle also did not have a driving licence at the time of accident. It was also pleaded case of the insurance company that the liability of the insurer was limited up to Rs. 6,000 (rupees six thousand), as per section 147 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Other arguments on merit were also denied.