ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. WASIM AKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that claimant Wasim Akram (respondent No. 1 herein), who was the petitioner before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner"), had preferred a petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), whereby he sought compensation of rupees ten lacs.

(2.) As per the petitioner, on 17/7/2010, around 10:00 p.m., when he was standing by the side of the road, a tractor, bearing No. HP-73-0937, hit him. The driver of the vehicle could not control the same, as he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Both, the petitioner and the tractor fell down and the petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner was shifted to a hospital, from where he was referred to Dr. R.P.G.M.C. Tanda. In sequel, the police was informed and FIR No. 185 of 2010, dtd. 18/7/2010, was registered. As per the petitioner, he spent Rs.50,000.00 on his treatment and Rs.20,000.00 on transportation. Besides this, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000.00 for pain and suffering, Rs.30,000.00 for special diet and attendant charges and Rs.8,00,000.00 on account of loss of future income.

(3.) Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company, by filing reply to the claim petition, refuted the claim of the petitioner and raised preliminary objections, viz., maintainability and suppression of material facts. It was contended in the reply that at the time of the accident, the tractor in question was being driven by one Surinder Kumar son of Gajinder Singh, resident of village Nehnoi Pargna Sahoo, Tehsil and District Chamba, and the petitioner was gratuitous passenger. It was further contended that the tractor was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. On the other hand, respondents No. 2 and 3, owner and driver of the tractor, filed separate reply contending that the FIR was lodged on twisted and distorted facts. Respondents No. 2 and 3, before the learned Tribunal below, further averred that the amount of compensation, as sought by the petitioner, is excessive. Respondents No. 2 and 3 denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 and they alleged that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure, which developed all of a sudden. As per respondents No. 2 and 3, the vehicle was comprehensively insured with respondent No. 1.