UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, lays challenge to impugned award dtd. 1/12/2017 in MAC Petition No.98-R/2 of 2016, titled Mohan Singh vs. Sh. Praksh Chand and others, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, Himachal Pradesh, whereby tribunal below while allowing the claim petition having been filed by petitioner-claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'claimant') under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act') saddled appellant/Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,02,000.00 on account of injuries sustained by the complainant in the road accident along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that claimant instituted petition under Sec. 166 of the Act, claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.9.00 lac. on account of injuries sustained by him in the road accident. Claimant averred in the petition that on 14/12/2015, he was travelling in Maruti Car bearing No. HP-01-2979, being driven by late Surender Kumar, rashly and negligently. He alleged that on the date of accident, car fell into 60 feet gorge due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car, who also died in the accident. He alleged that since he sustained multiple injuries on all parts of his body and remained admitted in hospital w.e.f. 14/12/2015 to 24/12/2015, he is entitled to compensation. He alleged that on account of injuries sustained by him, he has suffered disability, as a consequence of which, he is unable to do the horticulture and agriculture work from which he used to earn sum of Rs.15,000.00 per month. He claimed before learned tribunal below that on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, he is unable to sit and walk properly and as such, finding it difficult to maintain himself. Aforesaid claim put forth by the claimant came to be contested by respondents including appellant/Insurance Company.

(3.) Appellant/Insurance Company claimed that since vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy and at the time of accident, petitioner was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, following issues were framed on 4/1/2017: