Liability for compensation in motor accidents can be attributed to the party responsible for the rash and negligent driving, and the compensation should be just and adequate based on the nature of the injury.

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raisen in Claim Case No. 30/93, dated March 7, 1998.

2. Appellant Ku. Rachana Dubey was going with her father to village Amrawad from Bhopal by Bus No. M.P. 04-C-6392 on 22-5-1993. When the bus reached near Village Damdangri, it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by Surendra Kumar Rajpal. She was injured in the accident and received serious injuries on left cheek of her face with sharp broken glasses of the window of the bus. She got treatment from Dr. Shrikant Sharma (P. W. 2) of District Hospital, Raisen. Later she filed claim petition against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/-.

3. Respondents have stated that there was no rash and negligence in the driving of the bus. Insurance Company has stated that the driver did not possess valid driving licence for driving the vehicle. The Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged and found the claimant entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the disfiguration of the face (disability). However, it has been made payable by owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally.

4. Through this appeal award has been challenged by the claimant on the ground that just compensation has not been awarded looking to the nature of injury on the fact of the claimant and that responsibility for payment of amount of compensation should have been that of the Insurance Company.

5. After going through the evidence it is absolutely clear that the accident took place as alleged. In the absence of rash and negligent driving by the driver, accident would not have taken place. The appellant suffered disability on the face for which she was treated by the doctor, who has also stated that due to this injury permanent scar has been embedded on the face of the appellant. This has seriously affected the marriage chances of the appellant who is still unmarried. Scar of this nature comes within the definition of permanent disability within the meaning of Section 142(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 apart from categorical statement by the doctor to this effect.

Looking to the nature of the injury, we find, that the appellant has not been justly compensated. We are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-.

6. Next question is, who should pay the amount of compensation. Although Insurance Company has taken defence that driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence at the time of driving the vehicle, but it has not been proved by production of R.T.O., Jhansi. Submission that Surveyor of the Insurance Company was sent to R.T.O. for verification supports the defence taken in the case but does not prove the case of the respondents. The allegation should be proved legally by production of the Regional Transport Authority from Jhansi or any official from that office. Consequently, the liability of payment of compensation is of Insurance Company.

7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- from Rs. 15,000/- as allowed by the Claims Tribunal. Amount of compensation will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. Insurance Company will deposit balance amount of compensation with the Claims Tribunal within a month from today for payment to the claimant. Costs on parties.

8. Misc. Appeal allowed.