SOMVATI GUPTA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals (M.A. No. 273 of 1993, Somvati Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Bhatt and M.A. No. 274 of 1993, Lalmani Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Bhatt) are decided by this judgment since they arise out of same accident and common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna in Claim Case No. 1 of 1990 and Claim Case No. 54 of 1992.

(2.) Ram Salone Gupta and Lalmani Gupta were travelling by truck No. MIA 3715 along with their goods on 2.8.1989 towards Satna. Ashok Kumar Bhatt was the driver of mini truck No. MIA 3715, Methilisharan Gupta owner thereof and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer of the vehicle. The truck turned turtle as a result of which Ram Salone Gupta died while Lalmani Gupta sustained injuries and was shifted to the hospital. Allegation is that truck was being driven rashly and negligently, therefore, it could not be controlled by the driver and the accident took place. Defence of insurance company is that its liability is limited to Rs. 1,50,000 under section 95 (2) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and that driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. The owner and driver have disputed that driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. They also submit that excessive compensation has been awarded. The vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore, liability if any is to be suffered by it.

(3.) The Claims Tribunal holds that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently on 2.9.1989 and as such, it turned turtle resulting into accident. In this accident, Ram Salone Gupta died while Lalmani Gupta suffered serious injuries. In the case of Ram Salone Gupta, compensation of Rs. 75,000 has been awarded against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000. Insurance company has been made liable to pay Rs. 50,000 while in the case of Lalmani Gupta, compensation of Rs. 70,000 has been awarded against claim of Rs. 5,10,000 limiting liability of insurance company to Rs. 50,000. Both these appeals have been filed by the claimants challenging the extent of compensation and the liability for payment thereof. The insurance company has not filed any appeal, therefore, matter has to be examined with this background, more so taking into consideration LA. No. 1574 of 2002 seeking amendment of written statement in the case to the extent that the liability of insurance company is up to Rs. 1,50,000 and not Rs. 50,000 mentioned in the written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal. M.A. No. 273 of 1993: