RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. JAGDEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award passed in Claim Case No. 18/2003 by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior on 24/8/2006, appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in the evening of 21/4/2003, appellant-claimant was from from A.G. Office to Madhoganj via. Chetakpuri Chauraha by his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07/H-9453. As soon as appellant moved ahead from Shriram Colony, respondent No.1- driver of offending vehicle i.e. Bus came driving the said bus rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle of claimant due to which appellant fell down and the tyre of bus passed on his left leg and the said leg was crushed and fractured. Claimant received injuries on all over the body. Claimant was brought to J.A. Hospital from the spot. On the information of C.M.O. J.A. Hospital, report was lodged at Police Station Jhansi Road. After conducting MLC of claimant, xray was advised. In the x-ray report, tibia and fibula bone of left leg of claimant was found fractured due to which appellantclaimant got admitted in in the J.A. Hospital. Since appellantclaimant was not getting proper treatment at J.A. Hospital, he was admitted in Janak Hospital where he remained admitted for four days but his leg could not be cured and he suffered permanent disability. At the time of accident, appellant-claimant was 33 years of age and was working in A.G. Office. Appellant was earning salary of Rs.7000.00 per month. Due to the said accident, during treatment appellant could not attend the office for four months due to which he suffered severe loss. Respondent No.1 and 2 - driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Insurance Company filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition mentioning that since the respondent No.2-owner of the offending vehicle paid premium of the policy by cheque, which was dishonoured and therefore, the vehicle in question i.e. Bus was not insured with Insurance Company at the time of accident. It is also mentioned by respondent No.3 that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In such a situation, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

(2.) Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence led by rival parties, partly allowed the application of claimant and has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000.00 fastening liability on respondents No.1 and 2- driver and owner of the vehicle to pay compensation exonerating Insurance Company.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability to pay compensation on respondents No.1 and 2- driver and owner of the offending vehicle. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Oriental Insurance Co. Lts. Vs. Mahesh Prasad Rawat and others 2006 (5) M.P.H.T. 165(DB) Para 11, 12 and 13, decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar and others 2000 (1) M.P.H.T. 557 and decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in Anuradha Kaushik & ors. Vs. Varun Ground Water Development Corporation & ors. I (2007) ACC 305 (DB). It is also submitted that the appellant remained admitted in two hospitals on different dates for about four months and spent huge money for medical treatment and despite this, learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000.00 as compensation which deserves to be enhanced.