NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BILASPUR GRAMUDHYOG ASSOCIATHION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer is in appeal against the award dated 14. 8. 2003, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in M. A. C. Case No. 114 of 2000, awarding Rs. 1,00,000, compensation to claimant for damage to its building. The insurer has been directed to deposit the compensation within two months from the date of the award, failing which interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, from the date of the award, shall also be payable. The parties are referred in the same manner, as in the impugned award.

(2.) THE facts in brief, as alleged in the petition are that petitioner-claimant is an association. The truck No. HIA 6835 on 24. 7. 2000 at village Bamta while crossing the toll tax barrier went out of control and rolled down about 25 ft and rested on the building of the petitioner causing damage to the building. The petitioner was earning rs. 20,000 per month from the industry and as a result of damage to the building, the business of the petitioner suffered badly. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Building was got surveyed from the loss assessor and surveyor, who prepared the abstract of loss. Truck was insured with national Insurance Co. Ltd. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation.

(3.) THE owner, respondent No. 2, contested the petition and took preliminary objections of maintainability, according to him, respondent No. 1 is liable for the accident and not respondent No. 2. The vehicle was insured and, therefore, liability, if any, is of the insurance company. The F. I. R. was lodged in collusion with police only for compensation purposes. On merits, the damage to the building was denied. The amount claimed is excessive. The truck was being driven cautiously and not in rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1 at the time of the accident. The truck went out of road because of slippery road on account of rain. The truck fell down at some distance from the building of the petitioner and no damage was caused to the building by the truck. Respondent No. 2 denied the liability.