AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Heard Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
In the motor accident involving the truck, the claimantrespondent No.1 sustained injuries while the truck was being reversed. The Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 21334/ with 6% interest on account of the injuries so sustained by the claimantrespondent No.1.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimantrespondent No.1 was actually travelling in the truck and as such he was a gratuitous passenger who is not covered under insurance policy. The finding of the Tribunal is that at the time of the accident the claimantrespondent No.1 was behind the truck and he sustained injuries while the truck was being reversed and as such it cannot be said that he was actually travelling. He was a third party to the accident and therefore, was covered under the insurance policy.
A faint submission has also been made that the driver of the offending truck was not made party to the claim petition and therefore, the petition was bad for nonjoinder of the necessary party. There is no dispute with regard to the accident and that it had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The owner was before the Tribunal. Therefore, nonjoining or non production of the driver would not in any way affect the award of compensation to the claimant on merits. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and it is accordingly, dismissed.
The statutory deposit made before this Court shall forthwith be remitted to the Tribunal for necessary adjustment.