SEVANTIBHAI SOMABHAI BHANGI Vs. DEVRAM ASHARAMJI CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is before this Court challenging the judgment and award dtd. 29/11/2021, which came to be dismissed by the learned 4th MACT (Aux), Deesa, District Banaskantha.

(2.) Advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta submitted that it was a case of the claimant that on 11/4/2003, he was traveling on a scooter bearing registration no. GJ-8 B-2394 as a pillion rider from Village Thara and when they reached near the temple of Bahuchar Mata at Navrang Pan Center, at that time, one truck bearing registration no. RJ-19 G- 7608 coming from Radhanpur was in excessive speed and was driving in a rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter in full force and the applicant who was pillion rider sustained fracture injury on the left leg and skull and multiple injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately he was taken to the hospital at Thara for primary treatment, but since the injuries were serious in nature, they have been taken for further treatment at orthopedic hospital of Dr. Patel at Patan.

(3.) Mr. Mehta submitted that the claim petition came to be dismissed as the Judge found variation in the registration number of the scooter and that discrepancy was compared with the number as noted in the claim petition. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that primary registration no.GJ-8 2395 is similar in claim petition as well as in deposition and even in complaint Exh.20, but the only error that was found of the series, where actually in the complaint, the series is "B" while inadvertently in the claim petition, it was noted as "D" and the claimant while in his deposition stated series as "T". Mr. Mehta submitted that any such error has no relevance to the merits of the case since the claim is against the truck and the error which has been noted is of the vehicle on which the claimant was traveling and being a case of composite negligence, the compensation prayer is against the truck which has registration no. RJ-19 G-7608. Mr. Mehta referring to the complaint stated that the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on wrong premise observing that in a cognate matter being MACP no.517 of 2015 (old case no.478 of 2003), appeal was filed by another pillion rider and in that matter, it has not been stated that the present claimant was sitting on the vehicle as a pillion rider. Mr. Mehta submitted that in the FIR, it is noted that the accident had occurred when the persons traveling on the scooter had alighted. In the FIR, it has been categorically noted that the present claimant had come near the scooter and was talking with the motorcycle driver, at that time, he met with an accident where the truck no. RJ-19 G-7608 coming from Radhanpur had dashed and the said fact as noted in the FIR has been reflected in the judgment at Paragraph 15. Inspite of that fact, the learned Tribunal contrary to the facts on record had dismissed the claim petition by drawing discrepancy in the series number of the scooter where the compensation has not been even claimed from the scooter driver. The charge-sheet is produced at Exh.28, wherein the truck driver has been charge- sheeted.