MASTER PAWAN KUMAR Vs. MOHD KADIR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by Master Pawan Kumar minor, through his father, to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, in MACT Case No. 1 of 1992.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Pawan Kumar, appellant was going on his bi- cycle from village Uchana towards W.J.C. Canal on 10.11.1991, when a tanker bearing registration No. UHP 373 came from Assand side at a fast speed which was being driven by Mohd. Kadir, respondent No. 1 herein in a rash and negligent manner. The tanker struck Pawan Kumar's bi-cycle from behind, as a result of which, he fell down and become unconscious. On account of the accident the appellant suffered head injury and on that account he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. The claim was contested by respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company), whereas owner and driver were proceeded ex-parte. The factum of rash and negligent driving was denied by the Insurance company and an objection was also taken that the person, who was driving the tanker, was not holding a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to make the payment of compensation. It was also stated that the vehicle was not having the route permit.

(3.) On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and it was held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tanker No. UHP 373 which was being driven by respondent No. 1. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the claimants was entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as global (total ?) compensation on account of expenses incurred for his treatment as well as for pain and suffering, amenities of life, meditation and transportation, special diet and attendant etc. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the driver was only entitled to drive the light motor vehicle and since the tanker/truck did not come within the ambit of a light motor vehicle, it could not be held that the driver was entitled to driver the tanker. A findings was also recorded to hold that the licence Exhibit R-1 was fake and on account of this, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal absolved the insurance company of its liability to pay the compensation.