PARASAPPA RUDRAPPA PUJARI Vs. NAGAPPA BALAPPA AMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellant is the petitioner before the motor accident claims tribunal, belgaum, in m.v.c. No. 353 of 1980. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 56,000/- on account of the death of his son rudrappa parasappa pujari, who was employed by the owner of the truck bearing registration mark mez 4768 as ahamali (coolie). On one of the days when he had loaded the truck with mud, before he can get into the vehicle properly the vehicle was driven by the driver without notice as a result of which rudrappa parasappa pujari fell down and the vehicle ran over. As a result of the injuries caused by the Rash and Negligent Act of the driver he died. The petitioner claimed Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and shock, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of dependency and Rs. 1,000/- for funeral expenses. Respondent -1 the driver of the truck in his statement of objections resisted the claim. He pleaded that on account of the Rash and Negligent Act of rudrappa parasappa the accident took place and not on account of his Rash and Negligent Act. It was when the vehicle was set in motion on the date of the accident, the deceased rudrappa parasappa attempted to get on to the vehicle from the left side, fell down and as such' suffered the injuries. Respondcnt-2 filed his statement denying the allegations of the petition. Respondent-3 filed a separate statement contending that the deceased rudrappa parasappa pujari was employed by rcspondcnt-2, who was an independent contractor and was under full control of the vehicle and therefore, respondents 3 and 4 were not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It further contended that the accident did not take place in a public place as defined under Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the matter. Respondcnt-4 in his objections statement contended that the claim was false and frivolous. The truck was engaged by the residential engineer of M/s. Tarapur and co., indal works, belgaum and the deceased was an employee of the said company and rcspondcnt-4 was in no way responsible for payment of compensation. He denied that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the driver.

(2.) on such pleadings the tribunal framed as many as seven issues as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner proves that rudrappa parasappa pujari died as a result of injuries sustained in the motor accident involving the vehicle bearing registration No. Mez 4768? 2. Whether the petitioner proves that the said accident that took place on 12-12-1980 at about 12.00 noon at the quarry in yamanapur was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. Mez 4768?

(3.) whether the 2nd respondent is unnecessary party and has been wrongly impleadcd?