COMMISSIONER Vs. SURESHBHAI SHAMJIBHAI SOJITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants has assailed the common judgment and award passed by M.A.C.Tribunal (Main) at Rajkot in M.A.C Petition No. 1595/98 and M.A.C. Petition No.1596/98 in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short the M.V Act").

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent No. 1 herein claimant of MACP No. 1595/1998 was traveling as a pillion rider on 21.2.1998 at about 11:30 pm on scooter bearing registration No.GJ-3P-4138 and Nileshbhai Ramjibhai claimant of MACP No.1596 of 1998 was driving the said scooter. The motorcycle was of ownership of respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

(3.) The offending scooter fell into a ditch as according to the claimants the appellant Municipal Corporation had not put up any warnings, signals or indications around the ditches. Both the claimant suffered, serious bodily injuries in the accident. The claimant of MACP No.1595/98 filed a claim petition initially against respondent No. 2 owner of the offending scooter and Insurance Company respondent No. 3 herein. Later on the appellant came to be impleaded as one of the respondent pursuant to order passed below exh. 19 whereas the claimant of MACP No.1596/98 who was plying the motorcycle filed claim petition against respondent No. 2- owner of the motorcycle and respondent No. 3-Insurance Company pursuant to the order passed below Exh. 19. The appellant-corporation contested and resisted both the claim petitions essentially on the ground that vehicle belonging to the appellant-corporation was not involved in the accident and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim against the appellant-corporation. The Tribunal did not accept this contention and directed the appellant corporation in both the claim petitions to pay the compensation along with other respondents. The Corporation has questioned the liability of compensation in these two appeals.