Honble MAHESHARI, J.–This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle involved in accident against the award dated 28.06.1994 made by the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Jodhpur in Claim Case No.214/1991 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.44,621/- to the injured claimant for the loss suffered by him due to the injuries sustained in accident; but has exonerated the insurer of its liability on the ground that the vehicle was being plied on a nationalised route in contravention of the terms of permit.

(2). Only the finding on exoneration of the insurer having been questioned in this appeal, a brief reference to the background facts would suffice. The claimant-respondent No.1 Ramesh Chand Vyas, while joining his wife Smt.Chandra Kanta as claimant No. 2, sought compensation in the sum of Rs.3,04,250/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of a mini bus bearing registration No. RJ19 P 0123 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses with the submissions that on 15.03.1991 they were travelling with other members of family from Jodhpur to Sivana in a Jonga Jeep bearing registration No. RRQ 7177; that they took halt at a hotel near village Jatiyasani at about 8:00-8:30 p.m.; that the claimant No.1 alighted and proceeded to answer the call of nature when the non-applicant No.1 brought driving rashly the aforesaid mini bus bearing No. RJ19 P 0123 and hit him on the wrong side of the road causing extensive bodily injuries; that the claimant No. 1 remained hospitalised for about 53 days, had to undergo operations for treatment of fractures on his right leg and right arm, his wife was also required to take leave from her job for about 6 months to attend on him; and that he has suffered permanent disablement of the affected limbs and was still under physiotherapy.

(3). The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the mini bus, alleged in their reply, inter alia, that the claimant himself was driving the jeep without licence and caused the accident with rash driving of the jeep whereby the mini bus of the non-applicants turned over and the claimant was thrown out of his jeep. It was also submitted that the bus was insured with the non-applicant No.3 at the relevant time.

(4). The non-applicant No.3 insurer while filing a separate reply contended that the jeep driver had stationed the jeep on the road without any indication; that the accident occurred when the oncoming bus suddenly applied the brakes in order to save the jeep; and that the accident would not have occurred if the jeep were parked down the road. In its additional pleas, the insurer took the defence, inter alia, that the driver of the bus was not holding valid professional licence; that at the time of incident, the vehicle was not covered under valid permit; and that the owner of the vehicle RJ19 P 0123 has violated the policy conditions and, therefore, the insurer was not liable. Such objections of the insurer, relevant for the present appeal, read as under:-

^^1- vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 dk fuosnu gS] fd okgu pkyd guqekuflag ds ikl okgu vkj-ts- 19@ih 0123 pykus dk oS/k izksQskuy ykbZlsUl] ikWfylh] dh krksZ ds vuqlkj ugha FkkA blfy, chek dEiuh vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 gtkZus dh jkfk vnk djus ds fy, ftEesokj ugha gSA

2- vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 dk fuosnu gS] fd okgu oDr okdk oS/k vuqKki= ¼ijehV½ ls doMZ ugha Fkh] blfy, vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 gtkZus dh jkfk vnk djus ds fy, ftEesokj ugha gSA

3- okgu Lokeh vkj-ts- 19@ih 0123 us iksfykh krksZ dh vogsyuk dh gSA blfy, chek dEiuh gtkZus dh jkfk vnk djus ds fy, ftEesokj ugha gSA

(5). The Tribunal framed relevant issues for determination of the questions involved in the case about the responsibility towards the accident, on the quantum of compensation, and in relation to the defence put forward by the insurer. The parties led evidence in support of their respective stand and on behalf of the insurer was examined its Administrative Officer Subhash Chandra Bohra as NAW-1; a copy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document