1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1566 OF 2009 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Office at Alibag Branch, at PO and Tal:Alibag, Dist. Raigad Through the Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MRO-I, New India Bhavan, 34/38, Bank Street, Near Lion Gate, Mumbai 400 023 ...Appellant. v. 1 Naresh Krishna Patil age about 36 yrs., Occ: Contractor, residing at Chari, Post Poynad, Tal: Alibag, Dist. Raigad 2 Anwar Hussain Qureshi age Adult Occ: Business, R/at 395, Jubilee Building Shop No.22, PP Road, Mumbai 400 008 ...Respondents. Mr. Rajesh P. Behere h/for Ms.Priya Vaity and Mrs.Medha Behere, advs. For the Appellant. Mr.R.R.Salvi, adv. For the Respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 11th December , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Respondent No.1 was the original claimant, who had filed Motor Accident Claims Petition No.749/98 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad-Alibag. According to him, he was travelling by the Motor Cycle bearing no.MH-06 H 3000 on 28.1.1998 at about 10.00 2 p.m. At that time truck bearing no. MH-01/ H- 438 came in high speed from the opposite side, it came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle due to which Claimant as well as his motor cycle were thrown away. He suffered multiple fractures to his hands and legs and bleeding injuries on his head. According to him, he was required to undergo 3 or 4 surgeries for the said fractures and he had suffered 35% permanent disability. He had also spent Rs.1,20,000/- on his treatment. According to him, he was aged 26 years and was a contractor. As he has become permanently disabled, he is not able to carry out his work properly and that has caused loss in income. He claimed an amount of Rs.8 lac as compensation from the present respondent no.2, who was original opponent no.1 before the Tribunal and the present appellant, who was original opponent no.2. The appellant was insurer of the truck owned by the present respondent no.2. 2 Claim was contested by the Insurance Company. Besides taking other defences, it was contended that driver of the truck namely, Mahesh Maitkar was not holding valid driving licence at the time of incident and this was breach of condition of the insurance policy and, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 3 After hearing the parties, the trial Court held that the 3 accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck. Claimant had suffered permanent disability. Contention that the driver of the truck was not holding valid licence was rejected. Taking into consideration the material on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-. That order is challenged in the present appeal by the Insurance Company. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company urged two points, firstly, according to him, there was no driving licence with the driver of the truck and, therefore, it was breach of conditions of the insurance policy and secondly, concerned medical officer was not examined to prove permanent disability. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 5 On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that on behalf of the Insurance Company, its Assistant Manager Mr.Patil was examined to prove that driver was not having valid driving licence. For this purpose, he relied upon registration of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the driver. He had no personal knowledge whether driver was having any driving licence or not. The Tribunal noted that charge-sheet filed by the police against the 4 truck driver mentions driving licence number of the accused, which indicates that the accused/driver was holding a driving licence and, therefore, merely because Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act was added in the charge-sheet, it would not be sufficient to hold that he was not having valid driving licence. I do not see any fault in the approach of the Tribunal on this count. 6 As far as question of permanent disability is concerned, the Tribunal noted that as per the documents placed on record, the claimant had suffered fractures of both the legs and rods were implanted. Civil Surgeon of Alibag had issued permanent disability certificate Exhibit 47 showing that he had suffered 35% permanent disability. In Paragraph 14, the Tribunal noted that this aspect has not been seriously disputed or challenged by the respondents. If there would have been challenge to it, the claimant would be called upon to examine the civil surgeon, who had issued permanent disability certificate. As this fact was not challenged, claimant did not examine civil surgeon and the certificate was admitted and exhibited in the evidence. Therefore, I do not find any fault with this finding also. The trial Court noted that the Claimant was aged 27 years and rightly applied multiplier of 17. He stated nature of his business, his income, loss of prospective income as well as actual 5 expenses incurred by him on the treatment. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, I do not find any fault with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)