ORDER

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

Appellant insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 17.10.2022 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal whereby the compensation of Rs.2,49,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No.1 / claimant.

Facts of the case in short are as under:

[1] On 26.11.2018, at near about 08:00 the claimant was going on his motorcycle MP-14-MC-2341 in slow speed, when he reached to Dhanod crossing, a tempo Tata Magic MP-46-T-0603 came from Bilwani site and dashed him. He sustained the injuries on both the legs, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Rajpur for treatment. Thereafter he got carried out the X-ray on 27.11.2018 and reported fracture on his knee joint of left leg. From 04.12.2018 to 10.12.2018 he was admitted in the Sharda Hospital, the operation was carried out and he remained in the hospital for six month. The vehicle was owned by Ram Singh non-applicant - No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 –

Vimal. The FIR was registered at Crime No.477/2018.

[2] According to the claimant, he was engaged in the business of hen and goat farming and used to earn Rs.20,000/-. After the accident now he has lost his efficiency to work, he cannot sit on floor, he leg has suffered the shortening and he is now permanent disabled. Accordingly he claimed 10,70,000/- as compensation.

[3] The non-applicant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement that he was having a valid driving license from 29.01.2018 to 28.01.2019 and prayed for dismissal of claim. The none-applicant No.2 despite service remained ex-parte. Insurance company appeared and took a defence that the driver was not having a valid license hence, there is a violation of Section 147 and 149(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. The insurance company of the motor cycle has not been impleaded.

[4] The learned Court framed seven issues for adjudication, on the basis of the evidence the learned Tribunal has held non-applicant No.1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally responsible for the accident and the injury of disablement suffered by the claimant. The learned Tribunal has calculated the compensation as described in paragraph No.45 of the impugned award which is reproduced below:

45- Ekkuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s U;k;n`"Vkar Kajal V/s Jagdish Chand Page No. (2020) 4 SCC 413 esa fuEufyf[kr enks a eas {kfriwfrZ jkf’k fu/kkZfjr fd, tkus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k gSa%&

S.No.	Heads	Amounts
(i)	vLirky esa mipkj@HkrhZ gksus esa gqvk O;;% (Expence related to treatment, hospitalisation) Ifjogu ij (Expence related to [kpZ transportation)	5 42]000@& :- ]000@& :-
(ii)	orZeku ,oa Hkfo"; dh vk; dh gkfu (Loss of earning)	1]39]776@& :-
(iii)	Ifjpkjd O;; (Attendant charges)	5]000@& :-
(iv)	nnZ] ihM+k] lqfo/kkvksa dk uqdlku (Pain, suffering, loss of amenities)	50]000@& :-
(v)	mipkj ds nkSjku vk; dh gkfu (Loss of income	7]000@& :-

	during treatment)
(vi)	fookg dh laHkkoukvksa dk uqdlku (loss of marriage prospects)	Nil
(vii)	Hkfo"; fpfdRlk mipkj (future medical treatment)	Nil
	;ksx	2,48,776/-
Ikw.kkZad esa dqy 2]49]000@& :- ¼v{kjh nks yk[k muipkl gtkj :- ek=½

In view of the above table, learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2,49,000/- with interest @ 6% hence, this appeal before this Court.

[5] Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not in dispute that the Tata Magic tempo was having a fitness certificate upto 05.01.2019, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company which was valid upto 28.01.2019 but the vehicle was not having permit to ply the vehicle on road. In order to establish this fact Sanjay Mandloi, Assistant Grade-III, RTO, Barwani was examined who came with the certificate issued by the RTO certifying that Tata Magic was not having a valid permit on the date of accident, therefore, there is a violation of insurance policy hence, insurance company is liable to be exonerated.

Heard.

[6] In paragraph No.33 of the award,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document