S. N. Pathak, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 24.07.2014, passed by the learned District Judge-I-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj, in M.V. Claim Case No. 01 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.2,09,723/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim application till final realization of the compensation amount, in favour of the applicant-Ravi Kumar, and the same was to be paid by the Insurance Co.
(3.) Facts of the case before the Claims Tribunal in brief was that on 14.05.2009, the applicant-Ravi Kumar was returning from village Kabara Kalan to his village Chaukari by a Tractor bearing Reg. No. JH-09K-5079 and at about 02:50 p.m., when he reached at Kabara Kalan Road, P.S. Haidarnagar, Dist. Palamu, he fell down from the said Tractor due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the said vehicle and resultantly, his right leg was crushed by the said vehicle. Thereafter, he was referred to the nearby hospital where in course of treatment his leg was amputated for saving his life. The incident was reported to the Haidarnagar P.S. where a case bearing Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2009 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant- Ravi Kumar thereafter filed compensation case bearing M.V. Claim Case No. 01 of 2011 before the Court below, in which notices were issued to the opposite parties. Upon receipt of the notices, Opposite Parties appeared before the Court below and filed their respective written statements. Opposite Party No. 1, who was Owner of the offending vehicle, contended that he was not involved in the present claim case and was made party only because he was the Owner of the Tractor in question. He further contended that at the time of said incident, the Tractor in question was fully insured with the Opposite Party No. 3, Insurance Co. and as such, he could not be made liable to pay compensation. The Opposite Party No. 2, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, pleaded that he is innocent and he was driving the vehicle with utmost care, rather, the applicant got injured due to his own carelessness.The Opposite Party No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenged the maintainability of the claim case contending therein that no cause of action arose with the applicant. It is further contended by the opposite party No. 3 that the claim of the applicant is bad for misjoinder of the necessary parties inasmuch as the applicant has illegally impleaded the present Opposite Party in order to get wrongful gain from it. The opposite party No. 3 further pleaded that the applicant was a minor and dependent upon his parents and he was not a earning member. Further, the vehicle in question was a Tractor and according to the provisions of M.V. Act, no person can be allowed to go as a passenger by a Tractor and the applicant was travelling by the said Tractor in violation of the provisions of M.V. Act and the provisions of Insurance Policy and as such, the applicant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the Insurance Co., on the principles of no fault liability. It was further contended that the applicant has not produced any Injury Report or Medical Certificate to substantiate the permanent disablement caused to him due to the injuries sustained and as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Co. is not liable to indemnify the insured for the injuries sustained by the applicant.;