UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RATTANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant/ Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as `the Act' against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 16.2.2005, passed in Claim Petition No.13- K/II of 2003, titled Panchi Ram versus Jai Chand and others. This judgment shall also dispose of the appeal filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle challenging the findings of the learned Tribunal, whereby the Insurance Company was held entitled to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the original respondent No.1 Panchhi Ram, hereinafter also referred to as the claimant, (now represented by his legal representatives), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of `the Act' for the grant of compensation. It was alleged by the claimant that he was going alongwith others to Deotsidh on a pilgrimage to Baba Balak Nath Temple. They were going in a Tempo bearing No.HP 40 3713 and the driver of the said vehicle (respondent No.3 herein) offered them a lift upto Chambi. The vehicle was being driven by respondent No.3 who is the son of respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle). It was alleged that when the vehicle had covered a distance of 1 km. from Dodhamb, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and it went of the road and rolled down causing injuries and death of some of the occupants of the said vehicle. The claimant was removed to the hospital at Dharamshala and then to PGI, Chandigarh, where he was treated. The claimant suffered grievous injuries leading to permanent disability. The claimant alleged that he had been under treatment and is still under treatment. The claimant alleged his monthly income as Rs.6,000/- and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 lac for the permanent disability suffered by him.

(3.) The owner and driver of the vehicle filed reply and pleaded therein that the accident had not taken place due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver. The present appellant i.e. the Insurance Company (original respondent No.3) took up the plea that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and as such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.