ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/ Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act"), against the award dtd. 24/4/2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in MAC Petition No.0100069 of 2010, with a prayer to reduce/modify the impugned award.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 19/10/2009, the petitioner was travelling in HRTC bus from Shimla to Kingal and when the said bus reached at Jabli near Kumarsain, at about 4:00 PM, it met with an accident with a Tanker bearing registration No.HR37C-1283, due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries all over the body, his nose and mouth were badly damaged/injured and his teeth had also broken. He was taken to Government Hospital Baragaon for treatment, from where he was shifted to Kumarsain and thereafter he was referred to Dental Hospital, Shimla, where he remained admitted from 22/10/2009 to 31/10/2009. As per the petitioner, he spent more than Rs.2.00 lacs on his treatment including travelling expenses. The petitioner further alleged that before the accident, he was hale and hearty and also good in his studies, but due to the accident, his mouth had become ugly and it had become difficult to chew properly as iron plate had been inserted in his mouth. Hence, he prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,65,0000.00 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the petition and filed separate replies, wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action were taken. On merits, they averred that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of HRTC bus, hence, respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation, if any, to the petitioner. It was further averred that in fact respondent No.2 was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time as he had gone to a roadside temple.