Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1236 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sharafat Ali

2012-05-11

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2012
RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 3/12/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk thereby awarding a sum of Rs.81,220/- to claimant-respondent No.1 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident, which took place on 16/3/2008 involving the vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company. Claimant sustained injury on his right leg due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck leading to 12% disability. 2. Shri Amarnath Pareek, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has argued that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation as the injured was not having valid permit to ply the Truck bearing No.RJ-14-2G-0918 on which he was employed by the employer therefore the appellant insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle to make payment of compensation to injured respondent No.1. It was argued that as per Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the liability of the appellant would be limited and in the case of an employee, the multiplier cannot be applied. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others : 2004 ACJ 2094. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has on Issue No.4 held that the claimant produced copy of the permit, which was Exb.10 issued by the District Transport Officer, Jaipur for the offending vehicle besides that the Tribunal held that since injury was caused to a 3rd party, therefore absence of permit is not of much consequence. Driver had valid license to drive the vehicle. Insurance company failed to prove that the vehicle was being driven for the purpose other than those permissible under the permit. Claimant sustained permanent disability of 12% and he also received four injuries, which were all grievous in nature. Therefore, awarded sum of Rs.81,220/- as compensation cannot be said to be towards the higher side. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.