(4g 'EEGTL‘E CGiiET 6F CE'IEATTE§GARE AT BELAS?UR M.A. §e. 2.- .8I’2-9G4 AF?ELLAET Saheb Das Versus» Shiv PraSad and Others Juc‘igmam post fOY ]&~7—2UU / \ \ 'sal- \ ‘Dhir‘m dra Mishr$ E? W N3 OAR !'Jfi§\4 A ”M...“ i... 4; ‘ y'm, Sfo Jagannath Tandem, R5 Q: anyma An K/O Vlu Kumhi, Tall 83 PS. Beria, h uxaLL. ++ “111m L/Lu‘g. “JUN Mywdml$ b. The Unltect lnsm‘alice Lommany (The $9.2 Jr +AA T.-.’1«A T 4» a landgaOi—l, UlStt. Ra} Dal-ladgaO 11 O r snm P‘afu‘u Bharat coungd for fine apne‘uant Gk vufi D 1 .1D . Qnhn ucuxu, I\AJLuLauL 14‘ Lu;w Ha uni xucyv;1\.u/L1Lo wanqxan 1 4» uu 1\T z, d v Q arvl A ‘r. Sm‘l EallKaI AQI aWai COUDS€l IGI‘ U16 16‘51‘3011d61'lt IVO uvnp ]\ ayypcu nwwman a f Lu; xuoyuLLupLLL ear-‘nmr‘l + KIA nu 1L. vJUUU-Mbu'l‘ Ekirendra “ lsmai J. The appellant Has preferrad this appeal under Section 1‘73 of the Motor Vehicies Act 1988 (fer Short hereinafter referred to as the Act) again L the av» ard dated 2U 9 100d passed m The 1%(1ditiona1 Meter Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Eurg in Uialm UaSe N0. 22/2005 whereby ihe reSpondents- No. l to 4 nave been awarded compensa‘iion for the injuries- sustained b‘y‘ them in a motor vehicle accident invoiving tractor and trolie‘y’ m3 4r 1 L Lbu LLlLucL ax I U7" 1v E?FELE.AKTS Saheb Das, ‘2‘ f Chaimram biog-AEPLICAjzTs Gnhw ucxuxEIi-ii, 22 Eran” , LKIIO "L 1‘11 Jjnalns bod hiuuc , P 1 Out Post A h L/axu, 1 .L Uubx/ 1:no Lfni» «)Lax UL; Av1 KTn‘yn ucu'q“a1‘h, Distt. Burg (GGj ‘fwsiig RESFQNwENT i. S N PraSad b / o buau unan bamaum n AA gp ; L ; 3 C8533 bal llllal 8/ O bagulai batnanll aged ‘ g) Q K) 'vx? 3. Saran 5/0 Samaru Satnami, aged 15 YLQJQ +- i3 f3 C‘ {ii‘iifxifn TV W16 ‘J‘UFH x Q: EHC'L EllSUI€Ci i3? YES ‘, ’1 i N l T116 T€l€va11i 1361‘1OCL AJ F16 outSe , karma? 001111361 for the amwuant (1063 not “{‘1‘p3q {Hp a’DDCai agall1§1 U16 SDODU€11tS NO i f0 111 "16“7 GI Saciion 1/5 {‘2} 0:" the Act as fhe Tribunal has; awarded omv Ks Us; to eacn oi ti em, The Tribunal nae awarded a sum or R$ C) lb] * 1.0 U G I6SEODG€HX \IO ‘r \Vhfl lHIeI‘eQY ai U16 13I€ O}. r\) r;/o D6“ annuln 11‘0111 {16 "iatC OI &131)11Ca[1011 16 4 4' ”:“Jd respondent. No. 5 has been exonerated from satisfvina the award on £116 ground that th€ driver of the tractor trolley (11G no: ilave vaiid end effecxive driving iioence at the ume ol acolcient. L 6 2101111GS 111"’3€C1 DY £681116C‘ COLIUSEI IO]? Lhe aDiMJlaIH 1S that. exceesive combeusation has been awarded to the respondent. No‘ 4 towards 103$ 1'11 earnmg anti seconcm" that the Tribunai has commirted iliegajitv in exoneraung me insurance Connialrv from the iiabiliw of satisfying the award as irom the evidence avajiab‘le on record, 1E 1s evi ‘ien'c that tne appeuant was Ha‘HIIQ lea]. }C1°: 11C€DC5 311G £115 IaUlEf L/hcutul 81H VVDO “783 al‘SO Sitting beaide the apperlant a1: me time or acoldent was navmg vaiid driving Eicence. From rne evmence avanable on record, 1t wou‘id be evident that respondent No. 5n Insurer has faiieci to ‘3 H' 1 hat the anneliant was not having vand and enectlve CillVHlg 11C€11C€ and DaS 110i (ilSCI’lal‘gSd 112$ DLE‘Clfjll. On the other hand, 1earned counsei for the respondent No. CT) afgu€d {Hat adllllttedl’v" U16 aDDeHant “73S D&Vlng l6a1‘1161‘3 llCGl'lC-(‘J EX. U“). {Hat tOO t0 ({1‘1V6 light 1110101“ V6111Ci€ “’1161‘683 at the time of accident the tractor was fitted with a trader winch §X7aS D€1Dg USECI 101‘ U‘EDSDOTC aria Yilé aDDellallt Cild 110T. HEVE U16 vaiid and effective driving 1icence to drive transport vehicie. HOUQH 833136118111 Saheb 1123.8 813d 111$ Iati’ler Cilaltul‘&111 HaVC CiallllCCi that ai tile $11116 Oi aCCiCiEl‘lt, SailED UaS “781$ Cii‘lVl‘CLR ifaC‘LOI‘ Ella, Ullaltufalll “7110 11&G Valid GTIVHIEZ llCGl’ICC VVaS SKUIlg DGSlClE SallED UaS‘ but €V€11 U16 GT’tVlng HCEHCS OI Ullaitul‘aln i183 o A? not been m‘oc‘iuwd and proved. Rdizmce iS p‘iacea on me juc‘igmam in the matter of N'avt‘ionaf itww‘ancg Ca; Liti. —v— Kmum Fai wad7 afiwm renortec‘i in 20G6 fiCJ 2336. I have heard the iearned counsel for me parties. So far aS {he mgument that the award is too exceeswe, the Tribunal considering the fact that respondem No. 4 Narayan war;- zidmitted in the Bhiiai Hospiral for a period of more Ehan 4H3 éa‘y‘s and further considering {hm he had eubmitteo mecuoal ‘oi‘fie for a sum of RS. 35K) 1607 towai‘ds the expenditure on 111s treatment. and iooking to the nature of linmies, a sum 01 Fe 10,0(3‘01‘- haS been awarded, for 103$ of earning for 7 months, RS. lG,5GO/— has been awarded, for physmai and menta‘i agony, a sum of RS 10’G00j— has been afararded, thus a total sum of Rs. 65,5 16f — has been awarded with interest at the Thus, considering the evidence available on record, the nature of iniuries sustained bx? him and duration of hospitaiization, the awarded suin appears to be reasonabie and not excessnze as Claimed Di} tne appellant. NOW coining to the second question Whether the Tribunal was instined in exonerating the respondent No. ‘o from the ~ ‘lia'n‘litr of satisfvnig the award, from tne dr‘mng licence of lL‘x. Dd which has been fded and proved by? the appellant himself, it is evident that the appellant had learners licence for drivrng light motor vehicle onlv. lt is also not in dispute that at tne tune of accident the trailer was attached to the offending tractor and clainiante were traveling on trollev as labourers for unloading flag stone ioaded in the trolley The Insurance policy of EX P—‘7 is issued under farmer’s package policy as agricultural tractor and the policy does not contain the details of the trailer though there is no dispute that at the time of accident,‘ the trailer was attached with the tractor. in the matter of Kusum Rat {supra}, the driver of the offending jeep was holding drrv'ing licence to //A"l whic‘ya w a3 being \ Cl11V€ H9; t YROLOL Vel‘HCIB XVW€1€aS at H16 THEE OL aCCi€i611t, T116 S”7/' uSBCi 3S a taXl 811d, U1€E€LOT€, it WaS a co‘mmarcial Vehicle, in theSe venlcie anc‘i at the Ume oi me VehlCié Q16. 110T. DO€S€S$ U16 ChiV 111g. ilCEllCE Oi EH6 drive? of mg categary of vehic‘ig and on; Such m tiStx mg U16 awal HELQ EHER “111C6 tiP (111V61 Dad (ifl‘lu’lg 1‘1c4‘nce to (1mm 011k Hghi 1110101" uprame Court has &CC1Q€111Z U18 X661) VVaS‘ D811'1Q u€€d 83 a Lax Cii‘cmngxanceg, the Honrbie 1 allG U1€1€101€, U16 whicn L16 W as Cuwmg at me leievam. time 6 B1€1K811C€ COI‘flDan\ W a§ 110$ 1€$13011§1Dl€ i0}. PT. F1010} V6l11Cl€ hiQLxg‘D 1t l (l Hi L; 6 illStant (33%6 31‘30 i116 dl‘lVEl “7&3 HaVLug, 011K KiaITHl'lQ 11C€11Ca Oi 11g been Ciamled that me iather Lnamnam waS Smmg beeme mm wile was; having valid drivmg ueence, newever {he licence 0f Chaituram has not Even Otherwiee, the ap ii‘ meer vehicle gm t why v» men mg need be a aee axanm le Va“ t ming d tt tm t yi i bv t e ‘nm 0i auerv ema 1 mt hel‘ebjy‘ lennese. b ammuedh me U ac’im wag utteq wnn a e was ioadeii with flag StaPee and tne Vemde Wae emen ae on cord 1t 1e estaonenect that t‘ne appe‘fian’t no. ho vali arm effective <11 wing neence to cmve the eacor and ‘iiey a the relevant inne. cage, we do 110 f1n€i an’v award where he {h ‘iiab amg tne v 0 euanee ES Gd //x 'Sdi- ‘ \ yh’wendra Mishm 4 Judge 1 been produced nor proved by the appel‘iant. pellant wee Homing 01in; ”licence to c‘irive s ooey carnage veincle $161 tnus nom tne T’nue, re’ing upon the minnn‘o/ iudg‘ment. 01 niegantv in Kumém 1n the Rai§g impugned {supra} enonaent No o t ae been exonet ateo n‘om nnpngneo award the appeal is anti the Same cteservee to De chemiseed and ut 1 A a g te