NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A police constable riding as a pillion rider lost his right leg in an accident between a scooter and jeep. He had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City (for short 'the Tribunal'). However, vide judgment dated 26.5.1995, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, challenging the said order, he had filed a writ petition. Vide judgment dated 6.10.98, the Hon'ble High Court partly allowed the writ petition. As both the petitioners and insurance company were equally aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.10.1998, therefore, cross-appeals have been filed by both the parties before us. Since cross-appeal arises out of the same impugned judgment, therefore, both appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) On 22.4.1991, while Bashir was driving a scooter, petitioner, Mahendra Singh, was riding as the pillion rider. Allegedly Bashir was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. Around 7.30 p.m., the said scooter met with a head-on collision with a jeep. Resultantly, the petitioner had to undergo the amputation below knee of his right leg. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal wherein he claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,86,000. In its written statement, the insurance company contended that firstly Bashir did not have a valid licence. Secondly, although the driver of the jeep, owner of the jeep and the insurance company were named in the claim petition, but no relief has been asked against them. Thirdly, most importantly they contended that the claimant was riding the scooter as a pillion passenger. Therefore, the company is not liable for paying any compensation to the claimant.

(3.) The learned Tribunal held that firstly the claimant has not been able to prove that accident was caused because of negligence and rashness by Bashir. Secondly, since the claimant was riding the scooter as a pillion rider, therefore, the insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation. Hence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.