ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BASANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of Award dated 2.6.2014 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in M.AC Petition No. 11- S/2 of 2009, these were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

(2.) Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 19.2.2006, claimant, Basant Ram suffered grievous injuries on his person after being hit by a Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-39-A-2666, being driven in rash and negligent manner by its Driver, Rakesh Kumar (respondent No. 1 before learned Tribunal below). Rakesh Kumar assured the claimant to get his treatment done but fact remains that he never met the claimant nor paid any amount to him after the accident. Claimant remained hospitalized firstly at CHC, Dharampur, then at Zonal Hospital Solan, at IGMC Shimla and lastly at PGI Chandigarh. Claimant claimed that on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, he had to spend a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on his treatment. Claimant also claimed that he suffered 30% permanent disability on account of fracture in his leg. Claimant, while, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, claimed before learned Tribunal below that besides his earning from MES, he was also earning Rs.8,000- 10,000/- from agricultural pursuits, which he is now unable to do on account of permanent disability. Driver of the offending vehicle though admitted the factum with regard to accident but denied that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by him at the time of accident. While denying the claim of the claimant that apart from getting salary from MES, he was also earning a sum of Rs.8,000-10,000/- from agricultural pursuits, respondent-driver also denied the claim that claimant had spent Rs.2,50,000/- on his medical treatment.

(3.) Oriental Insurance Company Limited besides opposing the claim of the claimant on technical grounds also claimed that since driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and vehicle in question was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. Besides above, insurance company also claimed that the claim petition has been filed in collusion with the driver of the offending vehicle by the claimants.