Sri Abdul Wahid v. The New India Assurance Co

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, 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 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 (cid:147)Loading on TP Premium(cid:148) 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.)