- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 06. 10. 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/district Judge, Chamoli (in short the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 23 of 1997, Smt. Kunwari Devi Vs. Jaspal Singh Negi and others, whereby compensation of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant for the injuries sus tained by her along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment as mentioned in the impugned order.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise the present appeal are that Smt. Kunwari* Devi, the claimant, sus tained injuries in a motor vehicle ac cident on 1-4-1997 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Truck No. U. P. 08/317 Tata-608 at about 9 p. m. near' Chenagaad Guptakashi Basukedar. motor road. In the accident, the claimant became permanent disabled and she was ad mitted in the hospital since 2-4-97 to 29-4-97 and incurred expenses of Rs. 2,5007 -. It is also alleged that sum of Rs. 30,000/- was incurred by her in connection with her treatment etc. The offending vehicle was owned by Jaspal Singh and it was duly insured, with the National Insurance Com pany. The claimant-injured has filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The O. P. No. 1, owner of the truck, filed his written statement and contested the claim petition. He has admitted the motor accident involv ing Truck in question as well as own ership and insurance of the vehicle. It has been stated that the truck in Question was going from Basukedar to Guptakashi and at the place of ac cident, the road was blocked by mob of the people. The driver tried to con trol the vehicle but failed, which re sulted into the accident. The driver was not rash and negligent. The li ability if any to pay compensation lay upon the Insurance Company. The O. P No. 2 driver of the vehicle also filed his written statement and has taken similar stand as that of the owner. The Insurance Company also filed its written statement and con tested the case. It has denied the al legations made in the claim petition and has asserted that the owner did not file any insurance and driving li cence, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation.
(3.) LEARNED Tribunal framed fol lowing issues in the case : 1. Whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of truck No. UP. 08/3179 and Kunwari Devi sustained inju ries in the accident. 2. Whether the accident occurred as pleaded by O. P. No. 1 in para 11 of the W. S. filed by him ? 3. Whether the claimant is enti tled to Rs. One lac as compen sation amount? 4. Whether the truck involved in the accident had a valid insur ance. 5. Whether the driver tried to commit the murder as pleaded by O. P. No. 3 in para 21 of the W. S. ? Whether the claimant is enti tled to any amount. 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal took up Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 5 for decision. The learned Tribunal came to the conclu sion that Kunwari Devi sustained in juries in the accident occurred on 1-4-1997 at about 8-9 p. m. and the driver of the offending truck was rash and negligent. Issue Nos. 3 and 6 were also taken up together for deci sion and on the basis of other evi dence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital for 27 days and she suf fered pain and mental agony. The Tribunal after taking into considera tion all the aspect of the case held that the claimant Kunwari Devi is en titled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/ -. Lastly, the learned Tribunal took Issue No. 4 which was framed on the point of valid insurance. The insur ance of the vehicle was not chal lenged. Only the driving licence filed by the owner as paper no. 42-C was challenged. After considering the fac tual and legal aspect on this point, the learned Tribunal ultimately held that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its burden by cogent evi dence and decided the issue against the Insurance Company- appellant.;