CHOWGULE AND CO LTD Vs. VISHNU SHANKAR KALANGUTKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above appeals are taken up together for final hearing as both challenge the same judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panaji dated 10/02/2004 in Claim Petition No.25/1995.

(2.) THE parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the impugned judgment.

(3.) THE respondent no.1 filed his written statement and denied the case of the claimants. He has denied that he was driving the truck involved in the accident at the relevant time and according to him the truck was driven by one Dayanand Kushta Shirgaonkar, the respondent no.4. It was also contended that the accident occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the deceased Ramakant. The case of the respondent no.2, who is the appellant in First Appeal No.104/2004 is that though he admitted that the truck belonged to the said respondent, but however contended that one Gajanan Devidas was looking after the work of the said truck. It is further their case that the said Gajanan had engaged one Dayanand Kushta Shirgaonkar, the respondent no.4 herein, as the driver of the said truck and that on the date of the accident i.e. on 10/12/1994, the driver of the truck had taken the truck to Shirgao mines of the respondent no.2, as usual. It is further their case that the said Dayanand Kushta Shirgaonkar drove back the truck from Shirgao for lunch and Vinod Devidas, the respondent no.1 was sitting by the left side on the cleaner's seat. It is further their case that the accident occurred entirely due to rashness and negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. The respondent no.3 claimed that the vehicle was driven by the respondent no.1, who was not duly licensed to drive the vehicle and, as such, there has been a breach of specified policy conditions and, as such, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent no.4 also filed the written statement and disputed the allegation as to the manner in which the accident occurred. He has further stated that he was driving the truck and that the respondent no.1 was occupying the cleaners seat.