Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 627 (UTT)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE v. SATYA PAL

2013-10-04

B.S.VERMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral). This appeal, filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, is directed against the judgment and award dated 18.8.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge/FTC-I, Dehradun in MACT Case No.17 of 2005, whereby the appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.37,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimant/respondent no.1. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal are, that on 16.10.2004 at about 5 PM the claimant along with driver Jagdeep Singh was coming on Tractor No.HR-02 L-6092. The tractor was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently; and fell into mud and overturned. Driver of the vehicle jumped out from the tractor but the claimant received serious injuries on face, eyes and shoulders. The injured/claimant was sent to C.M.I. Hospital Dehradun for treatment. The injured was the only earning member in his family and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. With the above averments, the claimant/injured filed the claim petition for compensation. 3. The claim petition was contested by O.P. No.2, the owner of the vehicle as well as by O.P. No.3, the Insurance Company, by filing their written statements separately. The Insurance Company has specifically pleaded in para-30 that at the time of accident the vehicle in question was carrying the passenger while it was insured only for agricultural work. There was personal accident coverage of driver of the vehicle only and any other person was not insured. Hence, the liability cannot be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned tribunal, framed following issues:- i) Whether the accident had occurred on 16.10.2004 at about 5:30 PM due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor No.HR-02 L-6092? ii) Whether the driver was having valid driving licence on the date of accident? iii) Whether on the date of accident the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company? iv) Whether opposite party no.3 is not liable to pay compensation, as has been stated in paras-27 to 29? v) Whether the injured is entitled for compensation, if yes, to what amount of compensation he is entitled for? vi) Whether there is any other amount which the claimant is entitled for? 5. iv) Whether opposite party no.3 is not liable to pay compensation, as has been stated in paras-27 to 29? v) Whether the injured is entitled for compensation, if yes, to what amount of compensation he is entitled for? vi) Whether there is any other amount which the claimant is entitled for? 5. In support of his claim petition, the claimant/tribunal got examined P.W.1 Amrik Singh and P.W.2, and in documentary evidence, he filed copy of first information report and copy of insurance cover note. On behalf of opposite party, D.W.1 Jagdeep Singh was got examined. 6. On issue no.1, learned Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. On issue no.2, it has been held that the driver was having valid driving licences at the time of accident. On issue no.3, it has been held that the tractor was insured with the New India Assurance Company. On issue no.4, the learned Tribunal has dealt with the oral evidence in detail and it has been held that claimant was coming with driver for agricultural work in the field of owner. 7. Thereafter the parties led evidence. The learned tribunal, after hearing the parties and considering the entire evidence on record, by the impugned judgment and award awarded compensation against the appellant Insurance Company, as stated above. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 9. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that it was admitted fact that the vehicle in question was a Tractor and was not insured for any other person except the driver. The claimant was a gratuitous passenger and was travelling in the tractor along with driver and since 4 no person except the driver was insured hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 10. I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 11. The Tribunal, on issue no.4, has dealt with the oral evidence of the parties in detail and has held that claimant was coming with driver for agricultural work in the field of owner. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company. Moreover, by perusal of the Insurance Note, it is clear that one labourer apart from driver was also insured. This evidence has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company. Moreover, by perusal of the Insurance Note, it is clear that one labourer apart from driver was also insured. Thus, in my view, learned Tribunal has rightly fastened liability upon the Insurance Company and is accordingly held responsible for the entire accident. 12. In the light of aforesaid, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Let the amount deposited be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. 14. Interim order dated 09.10.2007 passed by this Court is vacated.