1. The respondent No. 1 claiming that she was injured on 6th April, 2003 when the Vehicle No. JK02G 9235, driven by the respondent No. 3 herein, in rash and negligent manner, hit her at Dharmond, Batote, filed a claim petition before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban, asking for compensation due to her in terms of 2nd Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company-present appellant, on the grounds that the respondent No. 1 was traveling in the offending vehicle-goods carrier as a gratuitous passenger and, thus, not entitled to recover any compensation from the appellant. It was pleaded that the owner of the vehicle was guilty of breach of insurance policy in as much as the passengers were allowed to travel in a goods vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and was not to be indemnified by the appellant. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle in their objections made a bald denial of all the averments made in the claim petition.

2. The Tribunal on perusal of the pleadings settled following issues;

I. Whether on 06.04.2003 at 3.00 PM near Dharmond, Batote, respondent No. 1 while driving Truck No. JK02G-9235 in rash and negligent manner hit the petitioner who was standing on the roadside, as a result whereof she sustained permanent disability? OPP

II. Whether the petitioner was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, if so, what is its effect? OPR3.

III. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and from whom and to what extent? OPP.

IV. Relief.

3. The respondent No. 1 appeared in the witness box to substantiate her case and examined Abdul Qayoom (Husband), Abdul Jabar and Dr. Sameer Abdullah to help her to discharge the burden to prove issues onus whereof was placed on the respondents. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal.

4. The Tribunal on going through the pleadings and the evidence brought on the file held the respondent No. 1 to have been standing on the road side when offending vehicle hit her, resulting in injuries to her, rejected the appellant's case that respondent No. 1, at the time of accident, was traveling as a gratuitous passenger.

5. The Tribunal, accordingly, decided all the issues in favour of the respondents and against the appellant and held the respondent No. 1 entitled to recover Rs. 1.25/- lacs from the appellant on account of medicines, attendant/pain and loss of future income. The award dated 9th August, 2008 is assailed in the present appeal on almost same grounds as are urged in the objections filed by the appellant in opposition to claim petition. It is pleaded that the investigation in case FIR No. 40/2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 RPC, Police Station-Batote reveals that respondent No. 1 was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and as charge-sheet was relied upon by the respondent No. 1, there was no reason for the Tribunal to believe respondent No. 1 and declare her to have been hit by the offending vehicle, while she was standing on the road side. The appellant contends that failure on its part to produce any rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the respondent No. 1, would not justify reliance on the respondent No. 1's evidence in face of the outcome of police investigation.

6. I have gone through the memorandum of appeal, record received from the Tribunal and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for appellant, elaborating on the grounds urged in the appeal, argues that as respondent No. 1, while filing the claim petition, had enclosed with it a copy of the charge-sheet emanating from FIR 40/2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 RPC, Police Station -- Batote, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to place reliance on the copy of the charge-sheet selectively and while making use of the charge-sheet to prove that accident

Click Here to Read the rest of this document