K SURAPPA Vs. V VENKATESHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimant for compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejecting his claim.

(2.) The petitioner who is a police constable was deputed for election work on 7-3-1971 in booth No.12 at Harihar in connection with the general elections. On 7-3-1971 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was returning with other staff in bus bearing No. MYY 3122 belonging to the present first respondent and driven by the second respondent before the Tribunal the vehicle dashed against a road side tree and a nearby temple and then capsized. The petitioner alleged that that accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that he sustained injuries in that accident. The petitioner had earlier made a claim petition in M.V.C.11/72, but as there was mis-description of the owner the petitioner got that application dismissed and filed this present petition. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, who had requisitioned the bus for election purposes as well as the Election Commission were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 respectively. The insurer of the bus was impleaded as the 5th respondent. The Union of India was also impleaded as party.

(3.) The first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, in his objections contended that in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition in MVC.11/72 the present application was not maintainable, that on the date of the accident the vehicle in question was not in his possession and the driver was not in his employment as the vehicle had been commandeered by the Deputy Commissioner for carrying election boxes and officials and it was actually the Deputy Commissioner who was the de-facto owner of the vehicle at that time and the driver was under his control and direction. He also pleaded that the accident did not take place due to any rash or negligent driving of the vehicle but due to some mechanical defect. The second respondent, Deputy Commissioner, denied that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus by the driver and pleaded that the claim was barred by time and that the Election Commission of India was a necessary party since the bus was commandeered for election purposes. The Election Commission of India while denying the averments that the petitioner was deputed for election work or that that accident took place in the manner alleged by the petitioner contended that they are not necessary parties to the petition as the Government of India has to bear the expenses of the election.