M.C. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the insurer under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 22.5.74 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Udaipur whereby the claim of Respondent No. 1 Ajit Doshi was allowed to the extent of Rs. 7,802/ -.
(2.) THE claimant Ajit Doshi submitted an application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation for the injuries sutained by him in the accident. It was alleged by him that on 11th June, 1970 at about 8.30 a.m, he was driving a car No. MHX 5633 and was proceeding from Ashok Nagar to Madhuban. His family was also along with him in the car and his nephew Manish and his friend Jogendra Singh were also with him. The car had almost crossed the road -crossing, then the truck No. RJY 140 proceeding from north to south, struck against the back wheel of the car with the result the car turned to the right side causing injuries to the claimant. The truck was being driven at that time by Mr. Rama non -Applicant No. 1. The claimant alleged that in all he received three injuries out of which injury No. 1 was grievous and the other two injuries were simple. There was a fracture at the elbow joint near right Ulna and there was profuse bleeding from this injury and operation had to be performed. It was found by Dr. Bajaj that all the muscles of the right arm upto the bone had been cut. Plaster was applied for six weeks and the claimant remained as an indoor patient from 11.6.74 to 16.6.74 and thereafter was treated as aa outdoor patient. The medical opinion lurther was that the claimant had 15% loss of function on the right extremity below tie shoulder joint and this disability was of a permanent nature. The claimant claimed Rs. 10,000/ - for permanent loss of efficiency, Rs. 2,000/ - pecuniary loss caused on account of medical aid, Rs. 1,500/ - loss of leave for a month and Rs. 17,500/ - as compensation for pain and suffering and shock, total Rs. 30,000/ -. The claim application was opposed by the non -Applicants, Rama, the driver of the truck, Roshanlal, the owner of the truck and the insurer. The insurer raised a plea that it never covered any risk of Mr. Roshanlal. The insurer had covered the risk of Prithvi Raj in respect of the truck in question for third party claim from 10.6.70 to 9.6.71 vide policy No. 48518 as such no liability of the insurer arises.
(3.) THE Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues: (1) Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by Rama non Applicant No. 1 P. (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to damages asked for ? P. (3) Whether the non -Applicant No. 3 Ruby General Insurance Co. had not covered the risk of the present truck owner Roshan Lal and hence is not liable for any compensation ? O.P. No. 3. The Claims Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing them, passed the award for a sum of Rs. 7,802/ -. It decided issue No. (1) in favour of the claimant. It also decided issue No. (2) in favour of the claimant to the extent of Rs. 7,802/ -. Issue No. (3) was decided against the insurer. While dealing with issue No. 3, the Tribunal found that Prithvi Raj was the registered owner of the vehicle but the defence raised by the insurer is not open to it and it was not necessary for the claimant to implead Prithvi Raj. In case of joint tort feasors, their liability is joint and several. Two documents were placed on record: -(1) Ex. P. 1, a sale letter submitted by Prithvi Raj to registering authority informing it that he has sold the truck to Shri Roshanlal for valuable consideration. It is dated 31.3.1970. (2) Ex. P. 2 certified copy of the certificate of registration showing the transfer entry or the vehicle from the name of Prithvi Raj to Shri Roshanlal of 19th June, 1970. Aggrieved against the award, the insurer has preferred this appeal.;