IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks and the requirement for insurers to prove breach of terms of policy to avoid liability towards the insured.

JUDGMENT :

BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in his favour for injuries by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran (Pali) in motor accident claims case No. 44/2005 vide award dated 11.7.2007.

2. The Tribunal has made an award of Rs. 33,180/- against claim of Rs. 33 lacks and odd.

3. The case and claim of the appellant is that on 5.7.2000, the appellant was travelling on a Jeep bearing Registration No. RJ-19-P-4226 from village Sendara to Beawar. Due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by Kamal @ Nathu Ram, the jeep rushed over a big stone as a result whereof its Tyre burst and the people sitting in the Jeep including the claimant appellant sustained injuries. The claimant sustained injury on his right hand and right leg. For the incident aforesaid, an FIR was lodged and after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge-sheet against Kamal @ Nathu Ram.

4. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 35 years and was engaged in making ornaments of gold and silver and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. The appellant has detailed about the expenses meted out by him in getting treatment of the injuries for three months.

5. The learned Tribunal has accepted that the appellant sustained injury in the motor accident due to negligence of the driver of the said offending Jeep. Learned Tribunal exonerated the insurer of the vehicle from liability on the ground that the driver had no driving licence at the time of accident. Insurance of the vehicle during the relevant period is not disputed rather proved by Ex.8, the certificate of insurance. The appellant had produced a permanent partial disability certificate at Ex.44 which shows that 10% permanent partial disability was caused at the wrist of the appellant. The learned Tribunal disbelieved the said certificate on the ground that the same was obtained from a place where the appellant never got treatment of his injuries. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was treated mostly at Bewar and for some time at Ahmedabad.

6. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed a written statement before the Tribunal but they did not contest further, only the insurer had contested the claim case.

7. Only one witness, the complainant himself was examined before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimant and he deposed about the incident and the fact that at the time of accident, Kamal was driving the vehicle and he was negligent and careless in driving the vehicle which resulted in accident. The witness detailed about his monthly income and vocation he was following. There was no cross-examination on these points rather cross-examination is to the extent that the appellant was not maintaining any ledger of his income etc. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Shyam Mathur, an officer of the Insurance Company was examined. He simply deposed that the driver had no driving licence at the time of accident and Insurance Company is not liable as per the conditions of policy of insurance.

8. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Others, 2003 ACJ 1

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others, 2005 ACJ 721

3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Basavva and Another, 2005 ACJ 724

9. The first point for consideration is whether it is a case of permanent disablement, if yes, the extent of disablement which prevented the appellant from following his trade of making ornaments or other vocations. The disablement certificate at Ex.44 reveals that the Chief Medical Officer at Sojat City had formed a Medical Board of three expert doctors. The Board noticed that there was malunion present at right wrist and dorsiflexion restricted. As such, there was 10% permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has wrongly disbelieved this document in absence of contrary evidence as it is not necessary that the Medical Board of experts should be constit