SHIVPAL SINGH Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal which has been filed against the judgment and award dated 19.7.2003 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, challenge has been made to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal as against exonerating the insurance company from its liability and for enhancement.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana with the averments that the respondent No. 1 (since deceased) was the driver of jeep bearing No. RJ 23-0391 and in that jeep claimant was also travelling. But on account of rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver on 30.5.1997, the jeep turned turtle as a result of which the claimant sustained several injuries on his person. In all total claim of Rs. 10,00,000 was claimed by the claimant before the learned Tribunal. The driver and the owner of the jeep filed written state- ment and denied that jeep was being driven on the day of incident in a rash and negli- gent manner. Respondent No. 3 insurance company raised several objections. An objection was also raised that the driver was not having valid licence. The Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. During the course of trial deceased driver died. Therefore, his name was deleted. His legal heirs have not been brought on record. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides awarded in all compensation of Rs. 1,21,025 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum vide its judgment dated 19.7.2003. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation, which needs to be enhanced. It is also submitted that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwani, 2004 RAR 69, proposition of law is clear that even learner's licence is a valid licence. According to the learned counsel in the above circumstances, exoneration from the liability to pay compensation of the insurance company is not a sustainable finding. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the award is a reasoned one which needs no interference. As regards liability of the insurance company in view of the above- referred decision could not be denied.