Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 380 (MP)

Rajveer Singh @ Satpal Singh v. Antar Singh

2013-03-20

N.K.Mody

body2013
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by award dated 12.5.2011, passed by MACT Indore, in claim case No. 210/2010, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,09,000/- was awarded and respondent No. 3 was exonerated, present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed alleging that on 8.5.2008, appellant was going as pillion rider on Scooter, met with another motor bike which was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was prayed that the claim petition be allowed and compensation be awarded. 3. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that since respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/- and exonerated respondent No. 3. on the ground that offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms of the policy, against which present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula and fracture of femur bone. It is submitted that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 13 days, where he was operated and rod was inserted. It is submitted that permanent disability was caused to the appellant and learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since appellant was third party, therefore, learned Tribunal was not justified in exonerating respondent No. 3. It is submitted that even if respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license, then too, at the most right of recovery could have been given to respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the appeal be allowed and findings whereby respondent No. 3 has been exonerated, be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made. It is submitted that since respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly exonerated respondent No. 3. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made. It is submitted that since respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving license, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly exonerated respondent No. 3. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 6. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record and looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, it appears that the amount awarded is on lower side and the same is enhanced by Rs. 41,000/-. 7. In other words, in view of this, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs. 41,000/- shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the the date of application. This order shall be executable upon payment of proportionate Court fees on the enhanced amount. So far as liability is concerned, since appellant was third party, therefore, this Court finds that learned Tribunal was not justified in completely exonerated respondent No. 3, at the most right of recovery could have been given to respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 shall pay and shall have a right to recover the same from respondents No. 1 and 2. In case option is exercised by the respondent No. 3, then the respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to demonstrate that respondent No. 1 was possessing valid driving license on the date of accident , subject to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- first. 8. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of.