LAWS(HPH)-2005-7-46

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. BALDEV RAJ

Decided On July 19, 2005
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Appellant
V/S
BALDEV RAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal by New India Assurance Company, award dated 2.5.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, whereby a sum of Rs.2,09,600/ - has been awarded by way of compensation, in favour of respondent Baldev Raj, hereinafter called claimant, is assailed, on the ground that the claimant being an unauthorized passenger on board the vehicle, in question, which was a goods carrier, and respondent Ramesh Chand, who was driver of the I truck at the time of occurrence being not possessed of a valid driving licence, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy and hence the appellant was not liable to satisfy the award. Award is also sought to be assailed on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive.

(2.) First the summary of the facts. Respondent Baldev Raj filed a petition, under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/ - for the injuries, he claimed to have sustained in an accident of truck No. HPA -9675, owned by respondent Jai Ram and driven by respondent Ramesh Chand. The truck, at the relevant time, was insured with New India Assurance Company. It was alleged that the claimant, Baldev Raj, was walking along the road, when the aforesaid truck hit him from behind and knocked him down, resulting in serious injuries on lower limbs, leading to disability to the extent of 34% in relation to the entire body and 98% in relation to the right lower limb. The truck, it was alleged was being driven in rash or negligent manner

(3.) The owner and the driver of the truck did not deny the occurrence of the accidence, though they did deny that the truck was being driven in rash or negligent manner. The appellant who was impleaded in its capacity as insurer, took various pleas available to it, under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and those relevant for the purpose of this appeal were that respondent Ramesh Chand, who was driving the truck, did not possess a valid driving licence and that the claimant was on board the truck as gratuitous passenger. An application was also moved under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking leave of the court, to take all those defences, which are available to the insured, on the plea that there was collusion between the claimant and the owner and the driver of the truck. In the reply also, it was pleaded that there was a collusion between the claimant on one side and the owner and the driver of the truck on the other. The learned Tribunal did not frame any issue, with respect to plea of collusion, nor did it pass any order on the application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the end of the trial, the Tribunal held that the claimant was walking along the road, when he was knocked down by the truck and that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving the vehicle by respondent Ramesh Chand. The objections of the appellant that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence or that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger were dismissed. The claimant was held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,29,600/ - on account of loss of future earning, Rs.40,000/ - on account of pain and suffering and loss of leg and Rs.20,000/ - on account of pain and suffering and loss of leg and Rs.20,000/ - on account of claimants inability to look after the manage his agricultural land, due to disability resulting from the injuries. Though the total of amounts, to which the claimant was held to be entitled on various counts comes to Rs.1,89,600/ - the Tribunal apparently committed an arithmetical error which adding up the count wise amounts and awarded Rs.2,09,600/ -.