BHAL NALKANTHA KHADI Vs. JAYANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) of Aimed-bad Rural at Narol ('the Tribunal' for convenience) on 15.1.1987 in M.A.C. Case No. 232 of 1985 is under challenge in this first appeal at the instance of the original owner of the vehicle involved in the accident giving rise to the claim petition by and on behalf of respondent No. 1 herein.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. One matador bearing R.T.O. registration No. GRR 4862 ('the offending vehicle' for convenience) dashed against respondent No. 1 herein at about 3.15 p.m. on 8.8.1984. He sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Respondent No. 3 herein was on the steering-wheel at the relevant time and the appellant herein was its owner. Respondent No. 1 herein was a minor at the relevant time. His father as the guardian of the minor filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It came to be registered as M.A.C. Case No. 232 of 1985. The driver of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition. He did not file any reply thereto. The appellant herein as the owner filed his reply at Exh. 16 on the record of the case and contested the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 herein as the insurer also filed its reply at Exh. 11 on the record of the case and disputed its liability to answer the award. After framing the necessary issues and after recording evidence and hearing the parties, by its judgment and award passed on 15.1.1987 in the aforesaid claim petition, the Tribunal partly accepted the claim petition and awarded to respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 62,800/- with running interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim application till realisation and also with proportionate costs. The insurer (respondent No. 2 herein) was, however, absolved from its liability to answer the award and liability to answer the award was fastened to the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, that is, respondent No. 3 and the appellant respectively herein. That aggrieved the owner and he has, therefore, approached this court by way of this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) I think Mr. Parikh for respondent No. 1 is right in his submission to the effect that the evidence on record is a clear-pointer to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle with respect to the accident in question resulting in serious injuries to the victim thereof, that is, the respondent No. 1 herein. The Tribunal has carefully scanned and scrutinised the evidence on record and has found the driver to be negligent in that regard. In view of the cogent and convincing evidence on record, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to make any headway in questioning the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in that regard.