HARSHADRAI MOHANLAL BHAMMAR Vs. ANIL BABURAO GHODESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner/ appellant herein and thereby challenged the dismissal of the claim petition by an Award dated 31st March, 1988, passed in the Claim Petition No.234 of 1986 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal").

(2.) THE applicant is the father of the deceased Parag who was aged about 18 years on the date of the accident i.e. on 14th June, 1986. Parag died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the matador vehicle No.MWY-4209, driven by the respondent No.1, owned by the respondent No.2 and insured with the respondent No.3. The said Parag succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, an application for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "M.V. Act") dated 5th December, 1986, was filed. The total compensation claimed was of Rs.6,20,500/- jointly and severally against all the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, by their Written Statement dated 20th August, 1987, resisted the Claim Petition and also raised specific pleadings in support of their defence. Respondent No.3, the Insurance Company, by its Written Statement dated 28th August, 1987, resisted the claim by simple denial. However, there was no dispute that the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent No.3. The applicant has led evidence of one Ramu Kalicharan Kanojia (PW-1)-eye-witness, Prem Grover Laxminarayan Grover (PW-2), the rider of the motor cycle, Dr. Pravin J. Gupta (PW-3) and the appellant Harshadrai Mohanlal Bhammar (PW-4). Non applicant has examined only one witness i.e. driver Anil Babulal Ghodeswar (NA-1)

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3. None appeared for the respondent Nos.1 and No.2 i.e. the driver and the owner, inspite of the service. The record shows that since 2001, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 till date. Therefore, the contest remained between the appellant/original petitioner and the respondent No.3- Insurance Company. It means that there is no challenge and/or defence from the owner, as well as, from the driver of the vehicle involved.