DAULAT Vs. OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant-appellant, Daulat, is aggrieved by the award dated 8.6.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bandikui (Dausa), whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 44,000/- in his favour along with an interest of 6% from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e. 30.10.2003.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant claims that on 11.6.1998 he was travelling in a vehicle Tata 407, having registration no.RJ20 G 3061 from Kota to Rajgarh in order to go and sell ornaments, which are used to decorate animals. In the morning of 12.6.1998 around 9 o'clock, while he was travelling in the said vehicle, respondent no.1 - Om Prakash, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. Consequently, the vehicle turned turtle. Resultantly, appellant suffered both simple and grievous injuries. Subsequently he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In order to buttress his case, he examined himself as a witness and submitted eleven documents. The Insurance Company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, that according to the leaned Tribunal itself, the Insurance Company had not submitted any oral or documentary evidence to prove the fact that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle. Yet the learned Tribunal has concluded that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and the appellant was travelling as gratuitous passenger. It is on this reasoning that the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company. [Relying on the case of Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul & another, 2013 AIR(SC) 1064, the learned counsel has contended that even if the vehicle happen to be a goods vehicle and even if the appellant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, even then the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the compensation amount. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was unjustified in exonerating the Insurance Company.]