LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-106

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT Vs. LEKHAN

Decided On February 11, 2014
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department Appellant
V/S
Lekhan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award delivered on 11th January, 2002, in Claim Petition No.347 of 1993 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The respondent No.1 is the original claimant. He had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the loss occasioned by him owing to his sustaining of serious injuries leading to his suffering from a permanent disability, in the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of one water tanker truck bearing registration No.MTF 7022. At the time of accident, this truck was being driven by respondent No.2, who was in the employment of appellants, and the truck was insured with the respondent No.3. The accident occurred at about 7.00 p.m. on 6.2.1993 near Ajani over bridge. In that accident, the said vehicle gave a dash to the bicycle rode by respondent No.1 and one Bahoran Singh. While respondent No.1, who was a labourer, suffered grievous injuries which led to suffering of permanent disability by him, Bahoran Singh died. The petition that was filed against both the appellants and respondent Nos.2 and 3, claimed compensation of Rs.1,20,000/ jointly and severally from them. The petition was partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.52,000/ was awarded to the respondent No.1 by the Tribunal by its judgment and award delivered on 11.1.2002.

(2.) According to the appellants, who were the employers of respondent No.2, as the accident occurred due to an act beyond the scope of employment of respondent No.2, no liability for compensation could have been fastened upon them. Therefore, they have preferred the present appeal against the said judgment and award.

(3.) I have heard Mr.M.A. Kadu, learned A.G.P. for the appellants and Mr.Y.R.Sonkusre, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are absent though duly served.