In the other appeal, the Bench enhanced the companypensation to Rs.
The car was being driven by the first appellant, a brother of the Second appellant.
That judgment was assailed in two Letters Patent Appeals, one by the legal representatives of the Claimant and another by the driver of the vehicle who is the first appellant herein.
15,800/ against the appellants and the fifth respondent herein.
1,25,000/ .
The claimants appeal was allowed by a learned judge in part and the companypensation was enhanced to Rs.
He approached the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Solan and Srimur Districts claiming companypensation of Rs.
Kishan Sarup Thapar, an advocate of Chandigarh who was travelling in the car got injured and was hospitalised for some time.
The car was insured with the fifth respondent.
20,800/ .
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the 1st appellant companyfirming the view of the single judge that the insurer is number liable as the claimant was only a passenger in the vehicle.
The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car and passed an award for Rs.
The driver and the owner of the car have preferred these appeals on special leave.
The claimant filed an appeal in the High Court claiming more companypensation while the insurer 5th respondent , filed an appeal disputing its liability to satisfy the claim.
The owners and drivers of both the vehicles as well as the insurers were impleaded as parties.
The learned judge held that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the car and the insurer was therefore number liable.
SRINIVASAN, J. On August 25, 1970 the fiat car owned by the second appellant companylided with a goods carrier on Shimla Kalka National Highway near Kandaghat Post office.
