UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the award dtd. 31/5/2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi (hereinafter referred to as 'MACT'), vide which the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 (claimant before the learned MACT) was allowed and the compensation of Rs.3,98,730.00 was awarded along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the amount. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant filed a claim petition before learned MACT seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000.00 for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident involving the vehicle bearing registration no. HP-34A-1100. It was asserted that the claimant and other passengers hired a Jeep bearing registration no. HP-34A-1100 for carriage of their luggage and goods on 29/3/2007. They boarded the vehicle as owners and caretakers of the goods from Nagwain to Panarsa. When the Jeep reached Takoli, the driver lost control of the vehicle and hit a tree on the roadside. The Jeep fell down. The claimant and other passengers sustained multiple injuries in the accident. The claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Kullu, where she remained admitted till 30/3/2007. She was referred to IGMC Shimla for further treatment, where she remained admitted from 30/3/2007 to 23/4/2007. The matter was reported to the Police and FIR No. 47/2007 was registered in Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. The petitioner was an agriculturist and a homemaker. She is unable to do anything after the accident. She was earning Rs.5,000.00 earlier and is unable to earn anything after the accident. She had spent more than Rs.1.00 lac on her treatment, attendant, taxi fare, special diet etc. The accident had taken place due to the negligence of respondent no.1. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 2. Both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Hence, the petition.

(3.) The petition was opposed by respondent no.1 by filing a reply. It was admitted that the accident had taken place but it was denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.1. It was asserted that the cows appeared in front of the vehicle and the accident occurred while trying to save them. It was also admitted that the claimant had hired the vehicle from Nagwain to Panarsa. It was asserted that there was no negligence on the part of respondent no.1. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.