BHUDARRBHAI JESANGBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. RAJENDRAKUMAR HARIBHAI DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the original driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Initially they along with the insurance company i.e., the New India Assurance Co., Ltd., challenged the judgment and award made by MACT [Main] Mehsana in MACP No. 829 of 1987 dated 28th April, 1993. However, the insurance company i.e., original appellant no. 3 has been transposed as respondent no. 2, at the request of the learned advocate for the appellants by order dated 17th January, 2007 and the appeal is, therefore, prosecuted by respondents no. 1 and 2 i.e., the driver and the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) THE accident in question took place on 23rd April, 1987. Respondent no. 1 who is the original claimant along with one Babubhai Ramjibhai Desai was going on the motorcycle no. GTN 2220 from Kalol to Mehsana. Respondent no. 1 was sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle. According to him, appellant no. 1 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As a result of the same, respondent no. 1 received serious injuries on his right leg and also other parts of the body. He, therefore, preferred the aforesaid petition for claiming compensation under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He claimed Rs.1 lakh by way of compensation.

(3.) THE appellants though served did not file any written statement, though they had engaged the advocate who remained on record till 27th April, 1993. Respondent no. 2 insurance company filed the written statement at Exh. 21. They denied the averments made in the petition and also denied the involvement of the truck in question. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced before it decided that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of appellant no. 1. The Tribunal also assessed compensation at Rs.44,400=00 with running interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 2nd January, 1991 till realization and proportionate costs. It further held that original opponents no. 2 and 3 i.e., appellant no. 2 and respondent no. 2 being the owner and the insurance company of the offending vehicle were liable to pay the compensation to respondent no. 1. Hence, this appeal.