nTs & ^n;? 1-ton'bie Shri Viiay famar Shr'vastava,J .<*. No. 1174 of f9>, v^-»-»...aih, •-•, yy^'\ S/o. Late Sir'dhG," '/adu, •'^? G>s^-* ...^. !i! Sojhtra, Dist Ourq (C.6. 1. BansilaS, Aged etoout 32 year's, S/o. JaWkinI, R/o. Old' Bus Stand, Dolii Rajharc, Tahsli, Balods, District Supg (C.S.) fibout yesr-s, R/o. New iWcfket Daiii Rcjhsra, Distt. Durg (C.@.) (Vehicle •'V'Ti ?ur pany Limited, @V» Compiex, RoQd, Durg (C.S.) IWK Shri V.K. Sharma,. None for resoonder Shri S. Das, Dy. iVianager, for 'the Insurance Company aiong with Shri Anand Gupta counsel for respondent SMo.3. ORAL ORDER (Dated 16th Jcnuary, 2007) ie foiiowing order of the Court was detivered by Vy Being aggrieved by the avi/ard dated 09.09.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunai Rajnandgaon (hencerorth "fte 1 ribunai') in Ciaim Case No.16S/2002 wherebv compensation ciaim^d bv the appsilant 'z-^ ,-8=9-) has been dismissed, this appeal under Sectlon 173 of' the Motor Vehicie f-i.f^ r\3 k'1782) vvas going to village .2 and was insured he car was owned by No.3 and was driven by respondent No.1. A truck was going ahead the car. When they tional Dhaba at village Tedesara, al drh/er apptied brake and stopped his vehicie, respondent No.1 who was driving the car instead of stopping the car, dashed it with the back portion of the truck, resultantiy appeliant sustained serious injuries. Police after dus investigation prosecuted respondent No.1 for rash • and negiigent assessed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,38,000/- u/s166i (3) Respondents contested the claim. Respondent No.1 atthough admitted his prosecution for rash and negiigent driving and aiso admitted that he confessed his guilt and that was accepted by the Criminai Court, yet, here pleaded that the accident took place due fo the negligence of Truck driver. Respondents 2 and 3 a!so pieaded tfsat for accident Truck driver who was negiigent is resDonsible. Resoondent No.3 aiso pieaded that the respondent No.1 was not hoiding license to drive the vehicls, as such for breach of poiicy they are not iiabie to pay compensation. (4) Learned Tribunai after appreciation ot evidsnce aithough held that on account of accident the appeiiant suffered ioss to the tune of Rs.21,990/- but did not award the sams against respondent on the arourid that for accident resoondent No.1 was not resDonsi&te as the accident took piac®because of the negitgence or Truck driver. sn his evidence deDosed that he was a car at was iansilai - (•.iiitSiiSl was going ahead of' it was suddenty stopped. The car driven by Bansiial entered beneath the truck and met with an accident, From hls cross- it is aiso evident that the car dashed the back of the truck. -evei of pradence is expected from driver Bansiial to have kspt a proper i ^ ihe car in back porflon of the Truck. UndisDUtedly accident took place, evsn respondent No.1 confessed his guilt before the Criminal Court, and' in such circumstance non-appearance of respondent No.1 in wimess box :compels Cousts fo draw adverse inferencs river cannot be biarned for the accident as he aaainst him. was going a? was compelled to apply brake and stop his vehtete. Learned Tribunai did not care to consider ali the above facts and utteriy failed to appreciate 1'he evidence. resultantlv aave an incorrect finding.^ Thersfore it is hekl that respondent No.1 on 24.05.2002 drove the vehicle bearing registration No.iV!P.24C/4201 in a rash and negiiaent manner and met v/ith the ant sustained injuries. ass'essed the comoensation i.e. Rs.21 ,S parties during the course of arguments. So far as ttie liabiiity of the company is concemed, iie M.P.: traveiins in mat *. licle' met wi accident were not entitied for comDensation witri the owner as weli as the ins&per. (7) in the resuit, appeaS succesds, respondents jointiy and severally pay to the appeiiant Rs.21 ,990/- Nins Hundred sees i vwntv compgnsatipn ^ ^ intsrest @ 6% from 18.06.20(E tili realization and shaii aiso pay ^ Rs.2,000/- towards cost. Sdf- V.K-Shrivastava Judge B:!f»W