The insurer is liable to pay compensation for accidents caused by motor vehicles used in a public place with the implied permission of the owner, even if the driver is negligent and does not have a driving licence.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the insurer.

2. On 24.9.1978 at about 9 a.m., claimant was going on his cycle. Near Bachelors' Barrack of the Unit-8 in the new Capital, Bhubaneswar, one Matador bus bearing registration No. ORP 5573 dashed against the claimant. After the impact, the vehicle dashed against right side culvert at that place and damaged the same. Cycle of the claimant was damaged and he was seriously injured with fracture on his right leg. Accordingly, claimant filed an application for compensation of Rs. 39,500/-.

3. Both owner and insurer contested the claim. Owner stated that on 11.9.1978, the vehicle was kept in the garage of one Natabar Pradhan for repair to whom the key of the vehicle was handed over. On the date of accident, vehicle was taken out of the garage by Lachhman and a helper of the garage, who had taken the key of the vehicle without the permission of the owner of the garage or of the owner of the vehicle, for their joy-ride. Neither Lachhman nor the helper had driving licence and accordingly, owner is not liable. Insurer also denied its liability since vehicle was in charge of the garage owner.

4. When the claim petition was taken up for inquiry on 29th January, 1982, claimant did not appear. Finding no material on record in support of the claim, application for compensation was dismissed. Misc. Appeal No. 203 of 1982 by the claimant was allowed on 26.11.1986 by this court with direction for enquiry by Tribunal and parties were also directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.12.1986. During pendency of the proceeding claimant made prayer on 23.2.1987 to amend the claim petition enhancing his claim from Rs. 39,500/- originally claimed to Rs. 1,00,530/- asserting that he was still being treated and has spent Rs. 25,000/- for his treatment. This was allowed by the Tribunal on 9.12,1987. Order was not supported by reasons. Thereafter, claimant examined two witnesses and produced document in support of injuries and prescriptions and receipts of purchase of medicines in support of medical expenses. Owner of the vehicle examined himself and produced the insurance certificate, charge-sheet and order-sheet in the G.R. Case against Lachhman. Evidence of the vehicle being handed over to owner of garage on 11.9.1978 was produced by filing the receipt of the amount by the garage owner for repair of the vehicle.

5. On consideration of the materials on record, Tribunal held that injuries sustained by the claimant were on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Lachhman who was charge-sheeted in the G.R. Case for offences under Sections 279/338, Indian Penal Code, 1860. It awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of pleasure of life and mental shock and physical pain and awarded Rs. 20,000/- for loss of future prospects. Tribunal awarded cost of Rs. 500/-. Compensation was directed to be paid by the insurer. Accordingly, this appeal has been filed.

6. From the materials on record, it is clear that accident was on account of negligent driving of the vehicle by Lachhman who has been charge-sheeted for trial in criminal court. Accordingly, claimant is entitled to compensation.

7. Next question for consideration is determination of just compensation. V/hen the claim application was filed in 1978, a claim of Rs. 39,500/- was made in respect of the following:

(1) Compensation for mental

shock and physical pain Rs. 5,000/-

(2) Expenses inclined in

treatment, etc., so far Rs. 1,500/-

(3) Future expenditure Rs. 3,000/-

(4) Compensation for loss

of pleasure of life Rs. 10,000/-

(5) Compensation for loss of

future career Rs. 20,000/-

8. In the amendment petition only ground was that the treatment was continuing and expenditure up to that time was Rs. 25,000. In place of claim of Rs. 4,500/- claim was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- in that regard. No reason in support of the prayer for enhancing the claim to Rs. 1,00,530/- was disclosed