The driver can be held liable to pay compensation exclusively in cases where the insurer is not liable and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, injury has been caused to the owner of the motor vehicle, resulting in permanent disability or death.

As per Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, J. -

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award of Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (in short "the Tribunal"), dated 9.1.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 67/06, by the appellant, who was driver of the vehicle - two-wheeler, insofar as the Tribunal has fastened the liability exclusively upon the appellant/driver to pay compensation to the pillion rider-deceased, who was owner of the two-wheeler.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28th December, 2005, in between 7.30 pm and 9.00 pm, the appellant was driving the motorcycle, Hero Honda bearing registration No. C.G 06/8557, of deceased Gopal Singh Chauhan, Branch Manager of District Co-operative Central Bank, Chhura, who was sitting a pillion rider. While they were returning from Pandka to Chhura after inspection of the funds of paddy purchase, the appellant was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and since he was drunk, he lost his control and caused the accident, as a result of which Gopal Singh Chauhan sustained injuries and the appellant left him there injured and returned to Chhura. However, when the witnesses brought Gopal Singh Chauhan to Govt. Hospital, Chhura for treatment, the doctors declared him brought dead. Report of the accident was lodged by Ramlal on 29.12.2005 at. Police Station: Chhura, whereupon Cr.No.78/05 for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC was registered against the appellant and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband.

3. At the time of accident, the deceased was 37 years and was working as Branch Manager in District Co-operative Central Bank. He was getting a salary of Rs.9,914/- per month and was an income tax payee. The claimants are widow and children of the deceased. They were fully dependent upon him, therefore, the claimants being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") claiming a total compensation of Rs. 37,50,000/- for the death of Go pal Singh Chauhan.

4. However, learned Tribunal after hearing counsel for the parties, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by them, by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.6,79,688/- to the claimants, fastening the liability exclusively upon the appellant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was not driving the motorcycle in question and there is not even an iota of evidence in this regard, but the Tribunal has decided this issue against the appellant and held that he was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident.

7. So far as above submission of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, upon perusal of the LCR, we have found that there is a statement of eyewitness AW -2 Narshingh Chauhan, who has stated that on the date of incident he had seen the appellant driving the motorcycle in question and his father sitting as a pillion rider. He has been cross-examined at length and in his cross-examination also, he has stated that he had seen the appellant Nand Kumar Soni driving the motorcycle. Thus, from the above unrebutted evidence of eyewitness A W -2, it is evident that the appellant was driving the motorcycle in question on the date of accident.

8. The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not an employee of the deceased-owner and as such, he cannot be treated as driver of the vehicle in question.

9. However, to our impression, a person who was driving the vehicle would be termed as a driver of the vehicle at the relevant time and would be thus wholly responsible for his rash and negligent driving.

10. Now the question for consideration before us is - whether the driver of a motorcycle can be held liable to pay compen