IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 592 of 2007 Sri Abdul Wahid …. Appellant. Versus The New India Assurance Co. . ..Respondent. Mr. Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent. Dated: 06-05-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, arise out against the judgment and order dated 20-11-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/I F.T.C. Nainital, in MACT Case No. 28 of 2006, Abdul Wahid Vs. The New India Assurance Company. 2- Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/appellant filed claim petition for compensation on the ground that in the morning of 11-12-2004 he was transporting sand in Truck No. U.P. 02-A-5787 and when he reached near Mundapandey District Moradabad, some unknown vehicle dashed the truck due to which the truck of the claimant fell in the ditch due to which the claimant as well as the labourers sitting in the truck sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was brought to Keshlata Hospital, Bareilly where he undergone operation of his legs. Thereafter he remained admitted in Krishna Hospital, Haldwani. Still he is under treatment. According to the claimant he spent about two lacs rupees on his treatment. At the time of accident he was 40 years 2 of age. Therefore, he claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 3- The New India Assurance Company contested the claim petition by filing written statement, denying the allegations made in the claim petition. The insurance company alleged that no information of the accident was given to it and the vehicle was being plied against the terms of insurance policy. It is further pleaded that an exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed. 4- On the pleading of parties the learned tribunal has framed the following issues in the claim petition:- 1- Whether on 11.12.2004 at about 7 A.M. the claimant Abdul Wahid sustained injuries in the accident occurred by the rash and negligence of driver of Truck No. U.P. 02-A- 5787 near Mundapandey, District Moradabad?. 2- To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to get and from whom?. 5- The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also filed photo copies of medical prescriptions, bills, insurance cover note etc. 6- The learned tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire material available before it, dismissed the claim petition. 3 7- Feeling aggrieved, the claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 8- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9- So far as the factum of accident is concerned, the learned tribunal has decided this point on issue No.1. According to the claimant he is the owner of the offending truck and he himself was driving the same at the time of accident. The further allegation of the claimant is that some unknown vehicle dashed the truck due to which he lost control over the truck and it fell down in the ditch and he and the labourers sitting in the vehicle, sustained injuries. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence against the above averment of the claimant. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly held that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident when the truck fell down in the ditch, after it was dashed by some unknown vehicle from behind. 10- However, the learned tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground that the owner/driver of the offending truck was not insured for personal accident, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation from the insurer, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 11- The learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted that at the time of accident the offending truck was insured with New India Assurance Company and at the time of taking policy the claimant has filled in proposal 4 Form wherein it was mentioned that being owner and driver the premium of Rs. 5945/- is being paid but the insurance company has wrongly shown Rs. 1,790/- as loading charge in the policy, therefore, the claimant/owner is entitled to get compensation and the tribunal has committed a manifest error in rejecting the claim of the claimant/appellant. 12- I do not find any force in the above submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Perusal of insurance policy shows that the insurer did not take any personal accident insurance pertaining to the owner of the offending truck. It has not been shown by the learned counsel for the claimant that the policy covered any risk for injury to the owner himself and it is not acceptable that the premium of Rs. 1,790/- paid under the head “Loading on TP Premium” is for covering the liability towards personal injury. I, therefore, see no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court and there is no reason to interfere with it. 13- For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB