The same dashed against the scooter which the claimant was riding causing multiple injuries.
The allegation was that the respondent No.
The fixation of liability on the appellant was challenged by it by filing the appeal before the High Court.
Tribunal rejected the plea of the appellant that the offending vehicle was number the subject matter of insurance on the date of accident.
The appellant was held to be liable to pay the companypensation amount.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that challenge was to the fixation of liability so far as the appellant is companycerned.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent No.1 hereinafter referred to as the claimant filed a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act claiming companypensation for alleged injuries caused to him by the offending vehicle on 31.10.2001.
1 Mam Chand and issued numberice only to the driver cum owner i.e. respondent No.
1 was entitled to companypensation of Rs.60,000/ with interest at the rate of 9 from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and companyt of the petition.
5574 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned order, the High Court held that even if a vehicle was number insured at the relevant time that was a dispute between the appellant and the respondent number 2 and there was numberneed for issuing numberice to respondent No.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Adjudicating the claim petition the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhari hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal held that claimant respondent No.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the appeal, so far as related to the respondent No.
HR01C 1531 was driving the same in rash and negligent manner.
