JUDGMENT : 

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

CM-21702-CII-2024

1. The present revival application has been filed for revival of FAO-1950-2006 which was dismissed for want of prosecution, vide order dated 05.11.2024. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to revive the petition.

2. Notice of the application.

3. Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2-Insurance Company and has no objection if the present application is allowed.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the present appeal is revived to its original number.

5. Accordingly, FAO No. 1950-2006 is taken on board for today itself.

FAO No. 1950-2006

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 09.01.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short, 'the Tribunal') for grant of compensation, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant was dismissed.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2003 at about 11/11.30 a.m., claimant/appellant had started vehicle for Alwar from Narnaul after driving vehicle bearing No DL-4CN-4507). The brother of owner of the vehicle Naveen Gupta and one Ravinder Saini and some other persons whose name was not known to the claimant, were sitting. When they near Village Bardod and were going on the road then all of a sudden one child came running on the road for saving whom the claimant applied brakes. As a result of which the vehicle struck against wall by the side of the road and turned turtle. Due to the accident, the appellant received injuries in his stomach from steering of the vehicle and the vehicle was also damaged. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul and thereafter referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied the factum of compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Parveen Kumar received injuries in a road side accident which took place on 13.11.2004 in the area of Police Station, Behror on account of use of Maruti Van No. DL-4CM/4507 by respondent No.1 Lalit mohan/opp.

2 If issue No.1 is proved. Whether the petitioner entitled to any amount as compensation. If so to what amount and from whom/OPR

3 Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present from/DPR.

4 Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition/OPR.

5 Whether the respondent No.1. was not having an effective and genuine driving license at the time of accident. If so to what effect/Opr-3.

6 Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence the claimant/appellant filed the present appeal for grant of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has not suffered any permanent disability in the accident, therefore, the provision of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, however, vehemently argues that the claim petition had rightly been dismissed by learned Tribunal. He prays for dismissing of appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. The relevant portion of the award dated 09.01.2006 is reproduced as under:-

“ІSSUES No. 1 to 4

8. All these issues being inter-connected have been taken up together for discussion.

9. This is a petition for claiming compensation section 163-A of Motor vehicle Act. It makes the owner insurer liable to pay compensation on the death or permanent disablement and while lodging a claim under t