NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter for short 'the appellant company') against the judgment and award dated 24.7.91 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (3), Kangra at Dharamsala in M.A.C. Petition No. 25 of 1989, whereby total amount of compensation of Rs. 73,160 was awarded in favour of the claimant Anil Kumar for the injuries suffered by him in the accident.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: On 5.3.89, claimant Anil Kumar hired a taxi bearing registration No. DAJ 3543 at Shahpur, District Kangra and he along with his mother and wife was travelling in the said taxi to Trilokpur. When the taxi (Maruti van) reached near a place known as Sihun at about 3.30 p.m., a Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus was coming from the opposite side being driven by respondent Harnam Singh, who stopped the bus on his left side of the road but respondent Balbir Singh driver of the van could not control his vehicle, as a result of which, the van struck against the stationary bus of the H.R.T.C. causing the accident. In the said accident claimant suffered injuries on his body and his right leg was fractured. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal below alleging, inter alia, that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver respondent No. 3 in this appeal despite the request made to him by the claimant's mother that he should drive the vehicle in question slowly. The claimant also alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him he remained as indoor patient for months together and had to spend lot of money on his treatment and that he has suffered permanent disability. He stated that during the period he remained under treatment, he could not attend to his business and suffered considerable loss in his income. On these premises, the claimant had made a claim of Rs. 5,16,735 as compensation.

(3.) The claim petition was contested and resisted by the owner of the vehicle Savitri Devi, respondent No. 1 herein and respondent No. 2 driver of the van. Both these respondents have admitted that their vehicle was hired by the claimant from Shahpur to Trilokpur but alleged that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver respondent No. 5 herein. Respondent H.R.T.C. and its driver had denied their liability to pay the compensation to the claimant on the ground that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver but had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver.