EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. PRAVINBHAI PRABHUBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the present Appeals are as under:- The claimant Pravinbhai, aged 21 years at the relevant time, was working as an employee (daily wager) for a sum of Rs.14.00 per day at Magdalla Port under the concerned Executive Engineer.His case is that on 12.1.82 at about 6.0 P.M. while he was being taken in a truck of the Port (registered in the name of the Executive Engineer of the said Port) he sustained fractures of tibia and fibula of both the legs. It has been stated that the driver Fatehsingbhai was driving the truck in a high speed. On account of sudden application of the brake, the plate of the diesel pump, which was loaded in the truck moved and dashed against his both the legs resulting into the fractures, as aforesaid. It is the case of the claimant Pravinbhai that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. On account of the injuries, as aforesaid, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Surat where he remained as an indoor patient. He has stated that he was earning Rs.450.00 P.M. and as a result of this accident, he sustained permanent disability and was no more in a position to do the work which he did prior to the accident. He claimed the compensation amounting to Rs.50,000.00.

(2.) The aforesaid claim was contested by the Executive Engineer of the Port as also the Insurance Co. by denying the averments made in the claim petition and the liability to pay the compensation was also denied. The concerned Executive Engineer admitted the incident but the case was set up that whereas the injury was caused by the plate of the diesel pump, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such an Application. Plea was also taken that the claimant had boarded the truck in a clandestine manner without the permission of the driver or the Dredging Master Dharamsinhbhai, while it has been admitted that there was a heavy plate which moved slightly because of the application of the brake. It has been contended that the driver of the truck did not know that the claimant had entered the body of the truck. It has been stated that the claim was highly exaggerated. The Insurance Co. has also contested the claim by saying that the claimant was an unauthorised and gratuitous passenger in the truck and,therefore, the Insurance Co. was not liable to pay any compensation. In the alternative, the Insurance Co. also contended that the claimant was working as a labourer of the Executive Engineer and, therefore, the liability was limited only to the extent of the liability under the Workmens' Compensation Act. Thus, the employer and the owner of the truck as well as the Insurance Co. both denied the claim of the claimant and also denied the liability for the payment of the compensation. A baseless plea has also been taken that the driver was not holding transport licence for driving the truck and,therefore, the Insurance Co. was not liable.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, as aforesaid, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:-