RAM LAL Vs. SAJJAN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the owner against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali dt. 20.09.1995, passed in Claim Case No. 120/89 awarding the compensation of Rs. 68,625/ - for personal injuries to the claimant, and holding the insurer liable to the extent of Rs. 15,000/ -, and fastening the remaining liability on the owner and driver.

(2.) THE necessary facts are, that the claimant respondent Sajjan Raj along with the deceased friend Kamlesh Kumar was travelling in Jeep No. RRT -6945, which jeep met with an accident near village Balrai, on account of negligent driving of the jeep by driver Devendra Kumar, as a result of which the driver lost balance, and the jeep hit against the Neem tree, and then overturned. Sajjan Raj received injury and Kamlesh Kumar died. With these averments claim petition had been filed claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,27,500/ -. In para -10 of the claim petition the present respondent No. 3 who was impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the claim petition was pleaded to have issued insurance cover on 28.04.1989. The insurer admitted the vehicle to be insured with it. However, the claim as such was denied on various grounds. Then, in additional pleas it was contended, that the driver was not having valid driving license, the company complies with the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and is entitled to contest the claim according to the terms of the policy.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the insurer at the opening of the arguments relied upon and referred to the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal v. Hasti Mal reported in, 2005 R.A.R. 410 (Raj.) passed in C.M.A. 398 of 1996 decided on 04.10.2004, and submitted, that that was the appeal filed by the present owner, against the award passed by the learned Tribunal in other case, being that of compensation on account of death of Kamlesh Kumar. He also submitted, that in that case also the question of limit of liability was also raised in this Court, and this Court in para -5 negatived the contention of the present appellant, who was represented in that appeal also by the same learned Counsel, and held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs. 15,000/ - only, and the appeal was dismissed.