JUDGEMENT
M.L.BHATT, J. -
(1.)THIS appeal arises out of the Motor Vehicles Act and is filed by insurance company against whom an award is passed for payment of Rs. 36,195/- on behalf of owner and driver of the vehicle which had caused accident to the vehicle belonging to respondent No. l and had caused some injuries to the inmates of the car. The amount is payable with simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment and the costs also are payable to the claimants.
(2.)IT appears that respondent Nos. l and 2 herein had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the allegation that the vehicle No. DHE 3397 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 was smashed by bus No. JKB 5235 owned by respondent No. 4 and driven by respondent No. 3. The accident had taken place near Dalgate, Srinagar, Front portion of the car and its engine had suffered damage. Two children sitting in the car and the driver of the car, namely, Abdul Rashid were injured. For injuries to the inmates of the car Rs. 10,000/- were claimed and for damage caused to the car Rs. 40.000/- were claimed before the Tribunal. Against the total amount of Rs. 50,000/ - claimed by the claimants, the Tribunal had given a lump sum award for injuries caused to the inmates of the car and for damage to the car at Rs. 36,195/- along with the interest as mentioned above.
Mr. Kaul appearing for the appellant insurance company raised number of arguments before us. His first argument was that insurance company's statutory liability for payment of damages would be only upto Rs. 2,000/- and not beyond that, therefore, company was not liable to pay the damages as granted by the Tribunal. In the next place, he contended that there was joint and contributory negligence of the driver of the bus and driver of the car which was involved in the accident, therefore, the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation would have to be slashed down and judged from that angle. His third contention was that as against the compensation which was paid to the respondent No. l debris of the motor car No. DHE 3397 was also given to the owner which should have been taken into account while deciding the compensation. His next argument was that the quantum of compensation was highly exorbitant as the car had not suffered more than Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- as damage which the company out of grace was willing to pay to the owner of the car.
(3.)THE appellant had made an application for amendment of the memo of appeal and he had tried to raise new grounds in the memo of appeal. The said application numbered as CMP No. 99-A came to be decided by this court on 10th August, 1984. The application was rejected and appeal was directed to be heard.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.