- (1.) THIS appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 7-8-2003 passed by the Motor Vehicle accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in compensation Case No. 22 of 1977. The claimant Usha Veena Rani Minz/ respondent No. 1 had filed a claim application on 8-3-1977 impleading the respondent No. 2 alone as the opposite party and seeking compensation forthe injuries claimed to have been sustained by her allegedly involving the mini bus of the respondent No. 2. The claim petition was disposed of by an ex parte judgment and award whereby Rs. 10,000/-was awarded to the claimant against the owner of the alleged offending vehicle. The owner opposite party filed a petition for setting aside the ex parte judgment and for restoration of the claim petition. The petition was rejected and it was only pursuant to the order of the high Court that the claim petition was restored to its original file. Thereafter the claimant appeared in the case on 27-2-1997. The matter continued to liner till the case was received in the Tribunal on 25-4-2003. The insurance Company was also impleaded as opposite party No. 2 on 3-6-2002. Later, the claimant filed a petition on 23-6-2003 seeking amendment in the claim application for enacashment of the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) and the prayer was promptiy allowed by the Tribunal. After conducting enquiry, the tribunal passed the impugned award dated 7-8-2003 allowing the claim of the claimant and awarded compensation amount of rs. 40,0007- by way of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the claimant and directed the Insurance Company (opposite party No. 2) to pay the amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 7-8-2003.
(2.) THE case of the claimant, in brief, is that on 21-9-1976, she was travelling as a passenger in the mini bus bearing registration no. BHN 5892. At about 9. 00 a. m. , when the bus reached Kanta Toli Bridge, it met with an accident causing multiple injuries to the claimant including fracture of her right leg. She was admitted to the Sadar Hospital, ranchi, for treatment of her injuries on the same day. She was discharged from Hospital three months later on 24-12-1976 with advice to take complete rest for ten weeks. She has claimed that on account of the injuries, she has been rendered disabled since she has not been able to restore her original normal gait and her disability has caused an obstacle in her marriage negotiation. She has also claimed that she was a student of 2nd year in electronics in the Ranchi Government women's Polytechnic and her studies had suffered on account of the injuries. She has claimed that the accident occurred on account to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and had sought initial liability or payment of compensation against the owner of the vehicle (respondent No. 1)The National Insurance Company was impleaded on the basis of the information provided by opposite party No. 1 that the vehicle was covered under Insurance policy with the aforesaid insurer.
(3.) THE owner of the vehicle, respondent no. 1 had contested the claim of the claimant stating that no such accident as alleged by the claimant, ever occurred and that as a matter of fact, the vehicle was never used for public transport, Rather, it was used only for the purpose of conveyance of the staff of the Usha Martin Company and on the date of the accident, the vehicle was comprehensively insured underthe Insurance company between 10-10-1975 to 9-10-1976. The Insurance Company had also contested the claim on the ground that the claimant has not adduced any evidence to confirm that the accident had occurred at all and has likewise, not adduced any evidence to confirm that she has suffered injuries whatsoever, or the nature of the injuries, if any, and in respect of the expenses were incurred in treatment of her purported injuries. The Insurance Company had also pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation and that even otherwise, since the date of accident relates to the period when the old Motor vehicle Act was in force, the liability of the insurer was limited.;