Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 172 (MP)

PANNALAL KESHARWANI v. RAM AVTAR MITTAL

2000-02-22

V.K.AGRAWAL

body2000
V. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 19. 4. 1990 in the Motor Accidents Claims case No. 23 of 1986, by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Sarguja District, Ambikapur, whereby the petition of the appellant/ plaintiff under section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been dismissed. ( 2 ) THE claimant filed the petition claiming compensation on the averments that on 26. 4. 1982 while he was returning from sanamani Colliery to Chirmiri, he boarded a truck No. UTZ 9415 along with his luggage. The respondent No. 1 was the owner of the said truck while respondent No. 2 was the driver thereof. The said truck was admittedly insured at the relevant time by respondent No. 3. On way the truck met with an accident, due to which the claimant suffered grievous injuries on his legs, which resulted in his permanent disablement. Compensation of Rs. 75,000 was therefore claimed by the injured-claimant. The application was resisted by the non-applicants/respondents. It was specifically averred by the insurance company that since the claimant was travelling in the truck in breach of the policy condition, the insurance company was not liable for payment of compensation. ( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal held that the claimant was travelling in the said truck. It was further held in para 11 of the impugned award that in the 'ghat' section while changing the gear, the truck started sliding down the slope, and during that claimant jumped from the truck and sustained injuries on being crushed by the wheels of the truck. It was, therefore, held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and, therefore, the driver and consequently the owner were not liable for the injuries caused in the said accident. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the claimant-appellant was travelling in the said truck in breach of the policy condition and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 insurance company was also not liable to pay the amount of compensation. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimant-appellant has submitted that indisputably the appellant met with an accident while travelling by truck No. UTZ 9415. It is also undisputed that the respondent No. 1 is the owner. 3 insurance company was also not liable to pay the amount of compensation. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimant-appellant has submitted that indisputably the appellant met with an accident while travelling by truck No. UTZ 9415. It is also undisputed that the respondent No. 1 is the owner. The respondent No. 2 is its driver, and that it was insured by respondent No. 3 insurance company. It has further been submitted that in view of the statement of dr. I. D. Karwani, AW 4, it is clear that the claimant-appellant has suffered permanent disablement and one of his legs has been shortened on account of injuries suffered in the accident. ( 5 ) IT would be clear from the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred as the truck started sliding down in the 'ghat' section. In the circumstances, the natural reaction of the claimant-appellant was to jump from the truck, in order to save himself. However, unfortunately in doing so, he met with an accident resulting in grievous injuries to both of his legs, on being crushed by the wheels of the truck. It is clear therefore that in the circumstances, the driver of the truck was not either discreet in changing gear in time or the truck was not in a condition as to proceed and climb the upgradient on the 'ghat' section. In either case, claimant-appellant could not be held responsible for the accident. The responsibility of the accident squarely lay on the driver and vicariously on the owner of the offending vehicle. Since the truck was insured by the respondent No. 3 and the appellant-claimant was a third party, it hardly matters as to whether he was travelling in the goods carrier either by payment of fare or otherwise so as to result in breach of policy condition. The third party risk has to be covered by the respondent No. 3 as has been laid down in new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpalsingh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC ). Therefore, the liability of reimbursement of amount of compensation lies on respondent No. 3. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellant-claimant suffered permanent disablement on account of rashness or negligence on-the part of the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation. Ltd. v. Satpalsingh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC ). Therefore, the liability of reimbursement of amount of compensation lies on respondent No. 3. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellant-claimant suffered permanent disablement on account of rashness or negligence on-the part of the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation. ( 6 ) THE claimant-appellant has suffered fractures on both his legs and one of his legs was shortened as has been noticed above. It is also clear that permanent disablement was caused to the appellant. The motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no fault liability provides for grant of Rs. 25,000 as compensation. Though it is true that the accident occurred when the old Act of 1939 was in force, yet in view of the provisions of new Motor Vehicles act, 1988, the amount of compensation of rs. 25,000 in the circumstances and in view of the injuries suffered by claimant-appellant, appears to be just. ( 7 ) IN view of the long pendency of the petition and in view of the rate of interest as was allowed at the time it was filed, it appears proper to direct that the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to receive interest on the awarded amount of Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty-five thousand) at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till payment thereof. Liability of the respondents to pay the amount of award shall be joint and several. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. It is directed that respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to the claimant-appellant compensation of Rs. 25,000 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum thereon from the date of presentation of claim petition, till payment thereof. Appeal allowed. .