Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J C.M.Nos. 24556 to 24558-CII of 2009 C.Ms are allowed. Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to all just exceptions.

Main appeal This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 6.5.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar, whereby Insurance Company-appellant was jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation alongwith other respondents.

The claimant Surinder Singh filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988, ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs for the injuries suffered by him in an accident that occurred on 16.7.2007, with Mini Bus No. PB-12J-2189 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant/Respondent sustained fracture of right leg and other injuries on his body. He was removed to the BBMB Hospital, Nangal and later on referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but he preferred to get treatment from the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. His right leg was operated upon and an expenditure of Rs. 60,000/- was incurred on his treatment. The Ld. Tribunal held the claimant to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 58,500/-, as compensation along with interest @ 9% p.a. From the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. It was further ordered that in case the respondents deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 45 days, the rate of interest would be 6% p.a. Respondents No. 1 to 3 were held liable jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.

On the pleadings of the parties, one of the Issue (issue No.2) framed by the Learned Tribunal was:-

"Whether respondent No.1 driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so, its effect? OPR"

In Para 13 of the judgment, the Learned Tribunal observed as under:-

"Surinder Singh received injuries in the accident because of the rash and negligent driving of Mini Bus No. PB-12J-2189 by respondent No.1 and the same is registered in the name of respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 as per Insurance Policy Ex.R-5. It is claimed by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that respondent No.1 was holding a driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle and the vehicle in question i.e. Mini Bus No. PB-12J-2189 does not fall under light motor vehicle. The definition of light motor vehicle has been given in S 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, which reads as under:-