PRAMOD Vs. VASANTRAO GANPATRAO GURJAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . Considering the issues arising, the appeal is heard finally with consent of parties.

(2.) THE appellant is the petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati who had filed proceedings for seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the said Act). According to the appellant in an accident involving a motorcycle on which he was traveling with two other persons was dashed by a motor car owned and driven by respondent no.1. According to the appellant, he suffered 80% permanent disability as a result of the accident. The claim was filed only against the owner and driver of the motor car as well as the insurance company with which it was insured. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident did not arise on account of composite negligence and as the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving the motor car, the claim was liable to be dismissed. Hence by the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2012 the claim petition came to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that as it had not been proved that the respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the claim had been rightly dismissed.