NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAMAN MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -II, Sirmour District at Nahan whereby a sum of Rs. 10,74,000/ - alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition uptil final realization of the amount has been awarded to the claimant -respondent No. 1.

(2.) BRIEFLY the case of the claimant -respondent No. 1, as set out in the claim petition is that on 5.7.2000 at about 7.00 p.m. on way back from Nahan while riding pillion of scooter bearing registration No. HP -17 -4072 owned and being driven by his father (respondent No. 2) near village Sainwala in Tehsil Paonta Sahib due to sudden appearance of buffalo on the road in front of the scooter, his father who was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner could not control the same and he fell down and sustained injuries on his spinal cord, which was fractured resulting in his permanent disability to the extent of 100%. The claimant alleged that his entire lower part of the body below the belly had become completely useless and he could not independently attend to his daily routine. He was on wheel chair ever since the accident and had to employ an attendant for help and assistance. The injuries sustained had completely marred his future and career as he was totally crippled. That apart even his marriage prospects were totally diminished and the claimant had now become a liability on his parents. On the aforesaid allegations, he claimed compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/ - from the owner/insured and or insurance company on the basis of insurance policy.

(3.) THE petitioner -insurance company also contested the claim petition by filing the reply, wherein it was specifically contended that there was collusion between the claimant and the owner/driver/insured of the scooter as they being related as son and father respectively. It was also alleged that claimant was not covered by the policy of the insurance as no premium was paid for coverage of risk of pillion rider. It was further contended that a false claim was lodged by the claimant that too after seven years of the alleged accident. It was further contended that theory of accident is totally improbable as no FIR was lodged qua the alleged accident. It was also contended that scooter was being plied by respondent No. 2 in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Once it was maintained that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2, therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed.