UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. H LALHIMINGLLANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has arisen out of the award, dated 12.05.2004, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Aizawl, in MAC Case No. 34/2002, directing the present insurer-appellant to pay Rs. 3,12,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent within one month from the date of the award failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum would accrue on the awarded amount until full payment is made.

(2.) The material facts, which have led to the present appeal, may be set out as follows: The Claimant-respondent No. 1 instituted the MAC Case No. 34/2003 aforementioned under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained, his case being, in brief, this : The claimant, aged about 40 years, was, at the relevant point of time, employed as a driver by the respondent No. 2 herein to drive his taxi bearing registration No. MZ 01 -A-5590 and used to receive Rs. 2,500/ as salary per month. On 24.07.2000, when the claimant was driving the said vehicle, another vehicle, namely, Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. MZ 01-A-9497, came from the opposite direction and collided against the said taxi at Tuipui. The said accident caused injuries on the person of the claimant and the claimant remained hospitalized therefore at Civil Hospital, Champhai, with effect from 24.07.2000 till 28.07.2000. Even after his discharge from the hospital, he has remained under treatment, for, the injuries sustained by him have caused 80% permanent disability.

(3.) As the registered owner of the said Sumo did not contest the claim proceeding, the present appellant, as insurer of the Sumo, on obtaining permission under Section 170 of the MV Act, 1988, resisted the claim on all such grounds, which were available to the owner of the Sumo, the case of the insurer-appellant being, briefly stated, that the inquiry report submitted by the police indicated that the said collision between the two vehicles aforementioned had taken place due to fault of the drivers of both the said vehicles and, hence, when the claimant himself was at fault, he could not have made a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988.