The main legal point established is that the insurance company is liable for compensation for damage to third-party property under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per Section 147.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This appeal and the cross-objection are directed against the Judgment and award dated 15.1999 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 84,582 in favour of respondent-claimant No. 1 Dharam Singh Bhai (for short ‘the claimant’ hereinafter) against the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short ‘the insurance company’ hereinafter) and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 holding them liable jointly and severally.

2. Aggrieved by the Judgment and the award impugned, the insurance company has filed the present appeal and feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation assessed and awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed the cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Briefly stated, facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of the appeal and cross-objection are that on 2 10.1994, marble slabs owned by the claimant were loaded in the truck bearing registration No. RJ 27-G 1487 to be transported from Chittorgarh to Palanpur (Gujarat). The said truck was owned by respondent No. 2 Khemraj and was driven by its driver respondent No. 3 Dayalal. On the relevant date, the truck was insured with the appellant insurance company. On 2 10.94 at about 10.30 p.m. while the said truck was plying on Udaipur-Abmedabad Road, at that time, another truck No. DLI G-A 4949 came from opposite direction. It was alleged that respondent No. 3 Dayalal was driving truck No. RJ 27-G 1487 rashly and negligently due to which it collided with truck No. DLI G-A 4949. As a result of the collision, truck No. RJ 27-G 1487 turned turtle and marble slabs loaded in the truck owned by claimant-respondent No. 1 were broken into pieces and as such, according to the claimant, he sustained loss of Rs. 94,975. A claim petition was filed by the claimant against the driver, owner and the insurance company of the truck No. RJ 27-G 1487. Before the Tribunal, the insurance company filed the written statement, however, the driver and owner of the said truck did not choose to file the written statement.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as 4 issues. Issue No. 3 was cast on the pleadings of the insurance company and the burden to prove this issue was also placed on the insurance company. The claimant had appeared as a witness before the Tribunal and stated that vide Exhs. 2 and 3, he purchased marble slabs from M/s. J.B. Marbles and Granites, Chittorgarh, costing him Rs. 29,431 and from Mansoori Marbles, Chittorgarh at a price of Rs. 57,650. He further stated that vide bilty Exh. 3, the afore noticed marble slabs (green) were being transported in the truck No. RJ 27-G 1487 from Chittorgarh to

Palanpur on hire. He placed on record the spot photographs, Exh. 6 (total 9 photographs). He has also proved the report of surveyor Shayam M. Heerani, Exh. 5 and fee receipt for conducting survey and the assessment of losses, Exh. 4; notice demanding compensation Exh. 7 (in Gujarati language); of which English translation, Exh. 8; receipt, Exh. 9; postal receipts, Exh. 10; acknowledgment of which, Exh. 11; certified copies of police investigation papers, Exh. 12; F.I.R., Exh. 13; site map, Exh. 14; seizure memo of the truck, Exh. 15; mechanical inspection report, Exh. 16; registration certificate of truck, Exh. 17; driving licence of respondent No. 3, Exh. 18. The driver and owner of the truck as well as the insurance company did not lead any evidence. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. RJ 27-G 1487 by its driver respondent No. 3, the property owned by the third party claimant was damaged for which the Tribunal assessed the loss/damage at a sum of Rs. 83,582 and added to that Rs. 1,000 for costs of claim petition and awarded Rs. 84,582. Thus issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were decided. While deciding issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that bur