GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. KHODABHAI MATRABHAI MEVADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the Executive Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, the respondent No.4 in the claim -application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and is directed against an order dated 11th September 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal [Aux], Dhangadhra in MACP No. 125 of 2004 thereby awarding a sum of Rs.3,36,000/ - with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization thereof. The learned Tribunal also held that the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, Matador No. GJ.2.U.8938, should pay 50% of the compensation while the remaining 50% should be paid by the respondent No.4, the appellant before this Court. The owner, driver or the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident have not preferred any appeal and have accepted the award while the Executive Engineer of Gujarat Electricity Board has preferred this appeal by contending that the Board is not liable to pay any compensation as there was no negligence on its part, and, on the other hand, due to negligence on the part of the driver of Matador No. GJ.2.U.8938, it had hit an electric pole and the damage caused to the the pole resulted in the electrocution of the deceased who was a labour in the said vehicle.

(2.) SINCE the involvement of the vehicle, the accident, negligence on the part of the driver and presence of the deceased on the vehicle have been established from the evidence on record and such findings have not been challenged by the owner, driver or the Insurance Company of the errant vehicle, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether having regard to the allegations contained in the application for compensation, the learned Tribunal below was justified in directing the appellant to pay 50% of the amount of compensation.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Shashikant Gade, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has contended that it was the Gujarat Electricity Board which kept a live wire on the road and, by referring to the post mortem report of the deceased, Mr. Gade submitted that it will appear that the deceased died due to burn injuries suffered due to electrocution and, therefore, there was negligence on the part of the Gujarat Electricity Board also in keeping a live wire on the road which is the real cause of death. According to Mr. Gade, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held Gujarat Electricity Board liable to pay 50% of the awarded amount. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.