MOHD NIZAM ANSARI Vs. SATYA NARAIN BEHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal by the petitioner/claimant has been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act'), against the judgment dated 19-7-1985 and the decree signed on 29-7-1985 by Sri Bhagwan Prasad, the Additional District Judge-Cum-Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad (In short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Title Suit No. 34 of 1976 awarding a compensation to him for a sum of Rs. 25,000 payable by respondent No. 2 (the National Insurance Co. Ltd.).

(2.) IT appears that two suits, namely, Title Suit Nos. 18 and 24 of 1976 were heard any disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 19-7-1985 by a common judgment since the claim made in both the suits arose out of the same accident. In Title suit No. 24 of 1976, the present appellent is the petitioner/claimant. His case is that on 24-2-1976 he was employed as Khalasi in the services Satnarain Behani, the owner of Mini Bus bearing registration No. BRO 2133 known as Anand Travellers. On the said date, the Mini Bus met with an accident near village-Pupunld on Chas, Dhanbad road. As a result of this accident, the left hand of the petitioner was completely amputeted from near the shoulder joint. His four fingers of the right hand were also amputated. Besides this the petitioner also suffered other bodily injuries. He was admitted in Bokaro Hospital, Bokaro, where he remained from 24-2-1976 till 9-4-1976 and he had spent a sum of Rs. 3000 towards his treatment. At the relevant time, the petitioner was getting Rs. 350 per month. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs 50,000 towards compensation for the injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident.

(3.) SO far as defendant No. 2 the National Insurance Co. (respondent No. 2) is concerned, it contested the suit by filing a written statement. It did not admit that the alleged injuries were caused to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Bus in question. It further denied that the monthly income of the petitioner was Rs. 350. It further denied that the applicant had spent a sum of Rs. 3,000 for his treatment in the hospital and stated that the amount of compensation as claimed by him was excessive. It further denied that it was liable to pay any amount of compensation to the petitioner. It further denied that the vehicle in question was insured with this defendant on the relevant date of the accident.