NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GAUTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in Claim Case No. 6 of 1997 by the 5th Additional District Judge-cum-Claims Tribunal, Chapra, whereby he has held that total compensation to which the claimant is entitled comes to Rs. 2,47,000 and not Rs. 6,60,000 as claimed by him. He has also been allowed interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 28.1.1997 till the date of actual payment less the amount of ad interim compensation, if any, paid to him pursuant to the order dated 1.8.1998. The appellant company has been held liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) In short, the relevant facts are that the claimant was injured in an accident on 26/28.1.1994 involving head-on collision of two trucks one bearing registration No. BRB 4908 and other bearing registration No. BHD 4551 near village Kendua under Akbarpur Police Station within the district of Nawada. The claimant is the resident of village Pirauna, P.S. Garkha, within the district of Saran and hence filed the claim case in the Tribunal at Chapra in the year 1997. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has awarded the aforementioned compensation. The applicant was the driver of truck No. BHD 4551 and at the time of accident, the truck was standing by the side of the road and the applicant was removing the wheel of the truck which was punctured. The other truck bearing registration No. BRB 4908 dashed the standing truck due to which the right leg of the petitioner was crushed under the wheels of his truck and the same had to be amputated above ankle. Upon notice the appellant insurance company contested the claim and the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that the driver of truck bearing registration No.BRB 4908 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and the applicant was injured in the accident caused by the said truck. As regard the entitlement claimed by him, the Tribunal though has found that his leg was amputated, but held that it cannot be said that he has become permanently disabled so as not to do any other work altogether. Tribunal though has accepted that he cannot earn livelihood as driver, but held that he can adopt other vocations of life and earn some livelihood and thus has granted compensation of Rs. 2,47,000 and not Rs. 6,60,000 as was claimed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant had initially assailed the validity of the impugned judgment mainly on two counts. Firstly, it is contended that the claim case is hopelessly barred by limitation and, secondly, that the cause of action occurring beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal and, thus, the Tribunal had no power to entertain the claim case and the impugned judgment is, thus, wholly without jurisdiction.