AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE original claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Main), Surat in M. A. C. P. No. 426 of 1980. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- together with running interest at the rate of 6% p. a. from the date of the application till realization and proportionate costs. The tribunal has, however, held that in the instant case respondent No. 3 i. e. , oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. , was not liable to pay compensation to the appellant, but respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely driver and owner of the offending vehicle were saddled with the liability to satisfy the award. The judgment and award are dated 28-2-1983.

( 2 ) THE appellant, at the relevant time, was working with C. K. Pithawala, contractor of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers. He received monthly salary of Rs. 300/ -. On 16-6-1980 he was required to go to Surat. However, the condition of the car of the Company in which he was supposed to travel, was not roadworthy, and therefore, he hired the car of respondent No. 2 by paying Rs. 175/ -. Thereafter, the applicant, the Resident Engineer of the company one Mr. Chaudhary and one Mr. Mohanbhai Patel and the driver started at about 8-00 a. m. on 16-6-1980. Respondent No. 1 was driving the car. They reached Surat and after finishing work at Surat they started to return to Bharuch. It was around 11-45 p. m. It is the say of the appellant that respondent No. 1 drove the car with excessive speed and despite repeated warnings, he did not slow it down. When the car was about to approach the Kim cross-roads, on the curve, it dashed with one stationary truck. As a result of the same, the appellant received serious injuries on face. His two teeth were uprooted and one was broken. He had also received other injuries on the face. He was immediately removed to Bharuch hospital and kept as indoor patient for about 14 days. Thereafter, he was taken to Jaslok Hospital at Bombay for further treatment and plastic surgery. He was thrice operated upon, and thereafter, he was advised regular follow-up treatment once in a month. It is averred in the application by the appellant that even after he was discharged from the hospital, he had to take physiotherapy treatment at s. S. G. Hospital, Vadodara. According to him, because of the injuries received on his face, there was disfiguration of the face and the permanent disability was caused. He, therefore, approached the Claims Tribunal to obtain compensation. Before the Tribunal he initially claimed Rs. 52,000/- but subsequently claim was raised to Rs. 99,999/ -.

2. 1. Respondent No. 1 resisted the claim by filing written statement at Exh. 34. According to him, he was not rash and negligent while driving the vehicle on the date of accident. He also denied that the vehicle was hired at the rate of Rs. 175/ -. According to him, the accident did not occur on account of his negligence or rashness. He averred that amount of Rs. 175/- was fixed for petrol, oil, etc. He also stated that the to and fro fare for Bharuch to Surat would be ordinarily Rs. 250/- to Rs. 300/ -. So far respondent No. 2 is concerned, he did not file any written statement. 2. 2. Respondent No. 3 - the Insurance Company filed two written statements i. e. , at Exh. 12 and at Exh. 40. The main contention of the respondent No. 3 was that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured because the car was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was alternatively contended that the appellant was gratuitous passenger in a car, and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. 2. 3. At the hearing, so far the appellant is concerned, he examined himself as well as Dr. Buch, who, at the relevant time, was Hon. Plastic Surgeon at Bombay. The appellant also placed reliance on documentary evidence. These documents pertained mainly to his injuries and the medical treatment received by him. Re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document