LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-156

SATLING GANGADHAR BAGAL Vs. ABARAO DNYANOBA SANAP

Decided On February 24, 2022
Satling Gangadhar Bagal Appellant
V/S
Abarao Dnyanoba Sanap Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of injury claim by the Tribunal in MACP No.62 of 2011 vide judgment and order dtd. 9/3/2018 gave rise to the claimant to file this appeal seeking reversal of the judgment and grant of compensation.

(2.) It is appellant 's case that on 6/12/2007 the appellant injured (applicant) was proceeding as a pillion rider along with his brother on motorcycle from village Kol-Kanadi towards Ambajogai. While the motorcycle was passing from Yashwantrao Chavan Chowk, Ambajogai, offending truck bearing registration No. MH-22-L-399 came in high speed and gave dash from behind to the motorcycle. As a result and impact of said dash, applicant as well as his brother i.e. rider of motorcycle sustained severe bodily injuries. At the instance of FIR lodged by the applicant, police have registered Crime No.351 of 2007 under sec. 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending truck. The applicant took medical treatment at various places. He sustained 46.8% permanent disability. It is the applicant 's case that he was serving in private limited company on monthly salary of Rs.7500.00. Due to accidental injuries, the applicant has lost his job as well as earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant has approached to the Tribunal for grant of compensation, in terms of Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) The driver and owner of offending vehicle resisted the claim petition vide their joint written statement (Exh.24). They have specifically denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It is pleaded that the applicant 's brother Vinod was riding the motorcycle carelessly in zigzag manner and due to his own fault, the accident occurred. Besides that they have denied the age and income of the applicant . The insurer also resisted the claim vide written statement (Exh.35). They have equally denied the negligence of truck driver and other aspects.