The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal applied the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 166, 279, and 337, to determine liability and award compensation in a motor vehicular accident case.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Ranjan, J. (Oral) - This Appeal by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has been preferred assailing the Judgment and Award dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claims Case No.459 of 2018, by which a compensation of Rs.61,32,800/- has been awarded to the injured/claimant-respondent No.1-Priya Rani, who had received injury to the extent of 90% in a motor vehicular accident.

2. Brief facts, which would be necessary for consideration of the Us, stand enumerated as under:-

A claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed by the injured/claimant (respondent No.1 herein) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/-due to the injuries so received in a motor vehicular accident. She claimed therein that she was working as Tele Sales Executive with Hermitage Infra Developers, SCO Nos.4 and 5, VIP Road, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as salary. Besides that, she was also imparting tuitions and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. On 30.06.2018, the claimant was riding her scooter bearing Registration No.PB65-TC-1821 and proceeding from Village Dhakouli towards railway station, Chandigarh maintaining correct side of the road at a normal speed. When she was crossing the railway bridge at about 9.30/9.45 P.M. and was proceeding towards the light point, a Zen Car bearing Registration No.HR26-Y-0045 was moving ahead of her. Due to red signal, the said car stopped at the light point and claimant also stopped her scooter but the aforesaid Truck (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by Ram Sewak (respondent No.2 herein) at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit her scooter and claimant also. As a result of which, the claimant alongwith her scooter and another rider fell on the road and suffered multiple injuries on vital organs of her body. Thereafter, the said driver of the offending vehicle struck with the aforesaid Zen Car also which was standing idol just ahead of the scooter and then hit the electricity pole after jumping over the divider. This shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. Since the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 in claim application and respondent No.2 herein, FIR No. 186 dated 01.07.2018 was lodged under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, at Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh.

Respondent No. 1 to 3 of the claim application appeared and contested the claim by filing written statement. In their joint written statement, respondents No. 1 and 2 (respondents No.2 and 3 herein) took a stand that the claimant herself was negligent in driving the scooter and the alleged accident was result of her negligent driving in violation of traffic rules, therefore the onus shifted upon her.

Respondent No.3, i.e., the Insurer of the offending vehicle (appellant herein) also denied the contents of the application taking several legal objections. A stand has been taken in the reply that liability of the Insurance Company would arise only if the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was being driven as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the rival pleadings, framed following issues:-

"1. Whether claimant Priya Rani received injuries in a road side accident due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No.HR38Q-0440 by respondent no.1? OPP

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount from whom? OPP

3. Whether the respondent no.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR-3

4. On appreciation of evidence l