POPATLAL DHANRAJ WADGAONKAR Vs. DATTU YESHWANT TAPKIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident goods truck bearing registration No. MHQ-2832. The respondent No. 1 herein was the applicant who filed the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 was the driver of the motor vehicle and respondent No. 3 the insurance company.

(2.) THE accident took place at about 10.30 p.m. on 9th February 1981 on Alandi Pune Road at Vadmukhwadi, Charholi. The respondent No. 1 was one of the members of the marriage party which was taken in the motor vehicle. He was sitting in the driver's cabin. At a certain place the truck halted and the respondent No. 1 was trying to alight when the truck started all of a sudden and respondent No. l fell down due to which respondent No. 1 suffered serious injuries. He was required to be hospitalised for nearly 1 -1/2 months and was not able to work as a labourer. This gave rise to the claim petition by respondent No. 1 who claimed compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. The claim was not resisted by respondent No. 2. It came to be resisted on behalf of the appellant by filing written statement at Exhibit 21. The appellant denied that the .respondent No. 1 was a passenger in the truck. It was contended that respondent No. 1 himself was rash and negligent. It was also contended that respondent No. 2 has taken passengers in the truck illegally, and therefore, the appellant cannot be held vicariously responsible. Respondent No. 3 insurance company contended that the insurance company was not liable as the respondent No. l was a passenger in the goods vehicle and the same was in contravention of the insurance policy, Exhibit 51, and therefore, there can be no liability.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellant i.e. the owner of the motor vehicle, contends that the compensation granted was excessive inasmuch as there is no evidence led to show the disability suffered by respondent No. l. Similarly, there is no evidence to prove that respondent No. 1 has suffered in any manner in his earning capacity. There is no foundation for granting pecuniary loss of Rs. 9,500/-.